1994

SAA Seminars; Filmed *Tmp.*; Prospero; *TN*; *AYL*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0831. Friday, 21 October 1994.
 
(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Oct 1994 15:20:32 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   SAA SEMINARS?
 
(2)     From:   Leslie Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, Oct 13 14:17:17 EDT 1994
        Subj:   Film Version of Tempest
 
(3)     From:   Thomas Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Oct 1994 22:56:25 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Tempest and Prospero
 
(4)     From:   Daniel Mufson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Oct 1994 20:00:00 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: *TN* Production
 
(5)     From:   Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Oct 1994 16:12:44 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0822  *AYL*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Oct 1994 15:20:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        SAA SEMINARS?
 
I have heard nothing about the seminar to which I will be assigned. Is everyone
else in the same boat, or have I (so to speak) dropped through the cracks?
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Leslie Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, Oct 13 14:17:17 EDT 1994
Subject:        Film Version of Tempest
 
Hi, Folks.
 
A friend of mine is teaching _The Tempest_ in a class next semester, and she
wanted to find out about film versions of the play.
 
Does anyone know of a good film version of _The Tempest_ (and *not*
_Prospero's Books_)?
 
I'd appreciate any suggestions.  Thanks!
 
Leslie Harris
Susquehanna University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Oct 1994 22:56:25 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Tempest and Prospero
 
In response to your question: I have not seen other production involving multi
media. However I did sit through a modern "Artists" rendering of the Tempest
called "Prospero's Books."  This involved some sensious and lush imagery. There
was more gratuitous nudity than in any movie I have ever seen! It does not
involve anything even remotely Shaksperian,but it might be an place for you to
start. At the very least, it's pretty to look at.
 
Thomas Hall
Northeastern Illinois University
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Daniel Mufson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Oct 1994 20:00:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: *TN* Production
 
First, I want to thank everyone for the responses I received about what people
would and would not want to see in a TN production, about what TN essays they
would recommend, and about worthwhile productions to look into.
 
Second comes the embarassing part.
 
On October 5, I attempted to download (or whatever verb one does) in order to
print out the responses I received. I had never tried to do this before, and,
evidently, the person I recruited to advise me was no authority, either. In
short, my entire saved mail file was obliterated. I have been living in denial
of this fact for two weeks, but it is time to face up to the fact that I will
never recover those files.
 
If you by any chance saved the mail you sent me, could you please send it again
to  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.? Sorry, sorry, sorry for the inconvenience.
 
If you sent your response after October 5, I still have it.
 
By the way, I have since figured out how to transfer documents from the network
to a disk, so I won't have any problems this time around.
 
With deep gratitude and much embarassment,
 
-Dan Mufson
Yale School of Drama
 
[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Dan, there are three things that YOU can do.  First, you can
order the appropriate weekly logs.  For example, to order the log for the fifth
week of SHAKSPER discussions in September, send "GET SHAKSPER LOG9409d SHAKSPER"
to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..  More than one such request can go in an individual
e-mail message.  Second, you can TELNET to the gopher server at the University
of Toronto (VM) and read and download the weekly logs.  Third, you can use the
DATABASE function to identify and order the appropriate daily digests.  --HMC]
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Oct 1994 16:12:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0822  *AYL*
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0822  *AYL*
 
Dear Shakesperians:
 
I know that the Cheek by Jowl will be returning to BAM in December.  Does
anyone know exactly when, and even mroe when tickets will go on sale?
 
Thanks,
Milla Riggio

Authorship

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0830. Friday, 21 October 1994.
 
From:           Marty Hyatt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Oct 1994 12:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0825  Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0825  Authorship
 
David Kathman calls Ward Elliot's computer study "pretty significant evidence
which can't be lightly brushed aside."
 
I haven't seen Elliott's work yet.  I'd like to.  It sounds interesting.  But
it cannot serve as evidence that William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the
works.  There are no writings of the Stratford man to test against the works
(unless one wants to use the will?).
 
The same problem applies to Oxford.  There are some poems and letters that
survived under Oxford's name (unlike Shakspere), but it is not a good sample
for comparison.  If Oxford was "Shakespeare", then what we have under his own
name is not typical of his mature work.  We knew this.  This is not significant
evidence against his authorship.
 
And while it is true that studying the variability of "Shakespeare" (as was
done apparently) helps in this regard, it cannot cope completely with what
history has given us.
 
This is no criticism of Elliot's work, which as I've already mentioned, I
haven't read.  It may tell us some interesting things about Shakespeare/Oxford.
 But it doesn't tell us anything about Shakspere of Stratford.
 
Martin B. Hyatt (Marty)  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA

Graduate Conference

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0828. Friday, 21 October 1994.
 
From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Oct 94 12:09 CDT
Subject:        Graduate Conference
 
         CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
 
I would like to call your attention to the 1995 Northern Illinois University
Graduate Conference on Language and Literature scheduled for Saturday, March 25
and Sunday, March 26, 1995.  Organized by graduate students at Northern
Illinois University, the objective of this conference is to promote graduate
student participation in the academic profession. Susan Gubar, the keynote
speaker, will be speaking on the following topics: "Feminist Criticism
Revisited: Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been?" (Saturday) and "White Skin,
Black Face: Representation of Racechange in Twentieth-Century Culture"
(Sunday). There will also be a special session on Film and Literature.
 
THE CALL FOR ABSTRACTS ENDS ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 1995.  Topics include all
periods of American and British literature, creative writing (submit entire
work), critical theory, film, linguistics, rhetoric and composition, ethnic
studies, gay and lesbian literature, and textual criticism and bibliography.
Send abstracts to: Conference Director, Department of English, Northern
Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115.  Fax: (815)753-0606

Re: Boy Actors in Women's Roles

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0829. Friday, 21 October 1994.
 
From:           David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Oct 94 18:16:20 CDT
Subject:        Boy Oh Boy
 
I'm sure James Forse will be responding to Bill Godshalk's request for
clarification of his comments on boy actors, but since he has also expressed
his views on the subject in print, I hope he won't mind if I jump the gun and
respond both to what he's said on this list and what I think he'll say in the
future.  I just reread the relevant chapter of Mr. Forse's book *Art Imitates
Business*, entitled "Why Boys for (Wo)men's Roles?", in which he argues that it
was not boy actors but adult male sharers in the company who played the primary
women's roles in Elizabethan theater.  (He goes on to suggest that Shakespeare
himself was the primary player of women's roles in his own troupe, a suggestion
that runs into loads of problems, but I won't get into that here.)  I have to
say, with all due respect, that I'm not impressed with his arguements.  A few
points:
 
1) First of all, Forse spends much of his energy attacking the same straw man
Declan Donnellan attacked in the NYT, namely the idea that *preadolescent* boys
played all the women's roles on the Elizabethan stage.  Well, nobody's saying
that.  The "boys" in question ranged in age from preteens to their early
twenties, based on what evidence we have. The word "boy" (or alternately "lad"
or "youth"), in the context of Elizabethan theatre, simply means "apprentice";
the fact that some of the "boys" thus referred to are older than the
prototypical "boy" envisioned by some 20th century critic is neither here nor
there.  Surely we can all think of circumstances where someone in his late
teens or early 20s could be referred to as a "boy" by someone significantly
older.
 
2) Contrary to Forse's assertion, there is *plenty* of evidence that the "boys"
apprenticed to actors were trained as *actors*, not simply as manservants.  I
refer interested parties once again to Chapter 5, "Apprentices", in G. E.
Bentley's *The Profession of Player in Shakespeare's Time*; this chapter deals
exclusively with boy actors in the adult companies as opposed to the children's
companies.  Just a couple of examples:  William Trigg, aged 19 or 20, states in
a petition to the Mayor's Court from 1631 that on 20 December 1626, he
apprenticed himself to John Heminges (of Shakespeare's company) to learn "la
'arte d'une Stageplayer".  (Trigg would have been 14 or 15 at the time.)
Seventeen year old Edward Damport stated on 2 May 1633 that he "has gone with
this company up and down the country playing stage plays these two years last
past.  His father promised his master, Edward Whiting, that he should serve him
seven years."  There are other instances where boy actors in the adult
companies were explicitly called "apprentices".
 
3) There is also plenty of evidence that the "boys" or "apprentices" in
question played women's roles; what little evidence there is for non-
apprentices playing women's roles in the adult companies is very sketchy. James
Wright's *Historia Histrionica* has a good deal of detailed information about
pre-Resoration actors, including apprentices and the specific female roles they
played.  Forse disparages this work because it was written after the
Restoration; I'm perfectly willing to concede that not every single fact in
Wright's book is accurate, but to completely throw it out as evidence on that
basis is not good scholarship.  Wright is very explicit and detailed about
apprentice boys playing women's roles, and he does not, as far as I know, talk
about adult sharers playing these roles. Setting aside Wright, pre-Restoration
sources are legion:  Thomas Heywood in *Apology for Actors* (1608) responds to
those who criticize "youths" who take the stage dressed as women; Ben Jonson's
*The Devil Is an Ass* contains a scene in which two characters talk about
"witty boy(s)" and "lads" being trained to act women's parts, and they go on to
praise "Dick Robinson", a real boy actor in the King's Men, for going to a
dinner party dressed as a lawyer's wife and causing an uproar with his bawdy
talk. (They go on to say that Robinson "dresses himself the best! Beyond /
Forty o' your very Ladies!").  Stage directions in surviving "Plots" of
Elizabethan plays often refer to "boys", either by their own name or the name
of their master (e.g. "E. Dutton his boye").
 
I've written more than I planned, but I just wanted to present an opposing
view.  Forse's book is an interesting read with a lot of iconoclastic ideas in
it, and I'm all for iconoclastic ideas in principle, but if you're going to
propose an idea so at odds with the mass of scholarship, you need a lot more
evidence than he presents to convince me.
 
Dave Kathman
University of Chicago
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Announcing: TDR

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0827. Friday, 21 October 1994.
 
From:           Richard Schechner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Oct 1994 11:47:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Announcing: TDR (T143)
 
    ...You probably heard of us but when is the last time you read...
  ______________________________________________________________________
                    ______   ______     ______
                    ######|  ######\    ######\
                      ##|    ##|  ##\   ##|__##|
                      ##|    ##|   ##|  ######/
                      ##|    ##|__##/   ##|  ##\
  ___________________ ##|    ######/    ##|   ##\_______________________
 
      -- The Journal of Performance Studies - T143 (Fall 1994) --
 
 
   TDR is the only journal that explores the diverse world of performance
   with an emphasis on the intercultural, interdisciplinary and experimental.
   It covers theatre, music, dance, entertainment, media, sports, politics,
   aesthetics of everyday life, games, plays and ritual.
 
   The journal is edited by Richard Schechner of the Department of
   Performance Studies, New York University, and is published quarterly
   by The MIT Press. Although TDR is not yet an electronic journal, you
   can browse through sample articles available on-line through the
   Electronic Newsstand and order via e-mail from The MIT Press (see
   directions below). Check out our table of contents!
 
 
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  // In this issue (T143 Fall 1994) \\
  --------------------------------------
 
  /TDR Comment
  -----------
  The Dilemma of Multiculturalism in the Theatre -- by Ethel Pitts Walker
 
 
  /In Memory
  ----------
  Ron Vawter by -- Richard Schechner
 
  /Letters, Etc.
  --------------
  Healing and Japanese Theatre -- a letter from Adam Lebowitz
   -- Deborah S. Klens responds
 
  /Updates
  --------
  Big Girls Do Cry: Femininity and Toughness in the Kerrigan-Harding
   Affair -- by Abigail M. Feder
 
  Retrial for Sharjah Blasphemers -- by Richard Schechner
 
  /Announcements
  --------------
  The Courage to Be Happy: Augusto Boal, Legislative Theatre, and
  the 7th International Festival of the Theatre of the Oppressed
   -- by Paul Heritage
 
  Vindicated: A Letter from Augusto Boal -- by Augusto Boal
 
  A Role to Play for the Theatre of the Oppressed -- by Douglas L. Paterson
 
  To Be or To Have -- by Zbigniew Cynkutis
   translated and edited by William H. Shepard
 
  Mask Face and Machine Face -- by Mikhail Yampolsky
   translated by Larry Joseph
 
  Playing Against the Text: Les Atrides and the History of Reading
   Aeschylus -- by Sallie Goetsch
 
  Who Speaks and Who Is Spoken For?: Playwright, Director, and
   Producer Joan Lipkin -- an interview by Iris Smith
 
  Re/membering Home and Heritage: The New World Performance
   Laboratory -- by Lisa Wolford
 
  "I Want the Microphone": Mass Mediation and Agency in Asian-American
   Popular Music -- by Deborah Wong
 
  "it was like a play in a play in a play!": Tales from South Asia in an
   Intercultural Production -- by Sharon A. Grady and Phillip B. Zarrilli
 
 
  /Books
  ------
  Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (by Peggy Phelan) -- reviewed
   by Philip Auslander
 
  Ecstacy and the Demon: Feminism and Nationalism in the Dances of
   Mary Wigman (by Susan Manning) -- reviewed by Karl Toepfer
 
  The First English Actresses: Women and Drama 1660-1700 (by Elizabeth
   Howe) -- reviewed by Tracy C. Davis
 
  Acting Gay: Male Homosexuality in Modern Drama (by John M. Clum); and,
  Communists, Cowboys, and Queers: The Politics of Masculinity in the Work
   of Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams (by David Savran) -- reviewed
   by Bradley Boney
 
  Interculturalism and Performance: Writings from PAJ (edited by Bonnie
   Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta); and,
  The Dramatic Touch of Difference: Theatre, Own, and Foreign (edited by
   Erika Fischer-Lichte) -- reviewed by Phillip B. Zarrilli
 
 
  Each TDR issue is filled with photographs, artwork, and scripts that
  illustrate every article. The journal, founded in 1955, is 7 x 10 and
  a 184 pages per issue.
 
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  // To browse and subscribe \\
  -----------------------------
  1. For subscription prices and ordering information, contact the
     publisher:
 
         MIT Press Journals
         55 Hayward Street
         Cambridge, MA  02142
         Tel: 617-253-2889  Fax: 617-258-6779
         Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
     Or, access the MIT Press Online Catalog: telnet techinfo.mit.edu,
     under Around MIT/MIT Press/Journals/Arts/ or via gopher by typing
     "gopher gopher.mit.edu".
 
   2. To browse through an article from our current issue, logon to the
      The Electronic Newsstand:
 
      via telnet: gopher.internet.com (login name: enews).
      via gopher: gopher.internet.com (port 2100).
      Via the gopher menu, go to: North America/USA/general/
      The Electronic Newsstand/all titles/TDR:The Drama Review

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.