Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: February ::
Re: Rosalind & Celia
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0274.  Wednesday, 26 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Peter D. Holland" <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 15:05:58 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0266  Re: Rosalind & Celia

[2]     From:   Mark Mann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 11:55:48 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia

[3]     From:   William Schmidt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 20:27:23 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:            Peter D. Holland" <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 15:05:58 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 8.0266  Re: Rosalind & Celia
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0266  Re: Rosalind & Celia

Probably because not many of the correspondents on this topic have yet
seen the production, the discussion has missed the point that, though
others describe the relationship hinting at lesbianism, the actors
playing Rosalind and Celia do not play it that way at all. In other
words, the assumption by people at Duke Frederick's court in this
production that close friendship between Rosalind and Celia must be
sexual says much more about the courtiers than it does about Rosalind
and Celia. Since the production rather overplays the court as a decadent
world (in which Le Beau watches Oliver being tortured while doing lines
of cocaine), the gap between what people say about a relationship and
what the audience can see the relationship as being seems significant.

Anyway, this is a tiny facet of an excellent production with the best
Jaques (Floyd King) I have ever seen - he alone is worth a trip to DC
and the price of admission!

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mark Mann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 11:55:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia

<< Mark Mann strongly dislikes the suggestion that Rosalind and Celia
might
 have erotic feelings towards each other:

 > Hear Hear!! Please, please, PLEASE spare me the psychosocial
 > revisionism...

Epizeuxis such as this often indicates a deep-seated terror of the ideas
being repudiated. Hmm.

 > too often "innovations" of this sort are all about the
 > director's inability a reckon with what he/she is given on the
 > page...and indicates an ego-driven need to "top" what Shakespeare
 > has given us...

Note the insistent yoking of psychological terms ('ego' 'drive') with
the archaic sexual language ('top'). The raw sexuality of this
repudiation bursts through in a frenzy of imagined sexual/textual
interpenetration of a 'Shakespeare' which is both a vulnerable body and
a vulnerable text.

 > If you have a cause to flog, i.e.  homoeroticism between
 > Rosalind and Celia, or Iago and Othello

It is imagined that only with violence ('flog') can the hated idea be
advanced by anyone. And note that this violence is again overtly sexual
(flagellation).

 > then get on a soapbox and shout it to the commuters, but keep
 > it off the stage

The antithesis of two kinds of 'platforms' is of interest here. The
'commuters' are obviously the 'computers' which, via SHAKSPER, have
disseminated the loathsome idea.

 > ...or write a thesis to be read by your closest friends
 > and family, who'll applaud your deep, deep insight and
 > origionality

The repetitive thrust of 'deep', which drives 'in' the hated idea, leads
naturally to the parapraxis of 'origion'. This speaks clearly of the
'o-region' which it is feared will be penetrated.

Okay Mark, I'm convinced. There IS something in all this Psych 101
stuff!

 Gabriel Egan >>

Well done, Gabriel...blew your horn in quite a penetrating
manner...impressive angling of view, using the time-honored method of
avoiding the topic by concentrating on the speaker...congrats on having
made it all the way to Psych 103.

......cheers, Mark

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Schmidt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 20:27:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia

I've been following the Rosalind & Celia discussion, but my point is a
little different:

Although the homoerotic suggestion was made clearly enough early in the
First Act it then just seemed to disappear (into air, into thin air?).
What happened?  It's an interesting enough idea, but-once that
particular box is opened-I think that the company and director have an
obligation to see it through to the end.  Any thoughts?  And any
thoughts about the way this idea would play out in the Forest of Arden?
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.