Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: January ::
Re: Richard III,
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0083.  Saturday, 18 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Jimmy Jung <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 13:39
        Subj:   SHK 8.0039 Richard III, Lover

(2)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:39:39 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0078  Re: Doubling

(3)     From:   Jeff Myers <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 20:15:18 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0077  Re: Star Trek Allusions

(4)     From:   Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 15:14:09 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jimmy Jung <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 13:39
Subject: Richard III, Lover
Comment:        SHK 8.0039 Richard III, Lover

I wanted to thank yall for your responses to my Richard III question.  I found
particularly interesting the comments regarding the political reality of Anne's
situation and postings that point out how surprised Richard is after the
wooing, "I do mistake myself."  Taken together, they suggest that Anne is
conning Richard, for political reasons; instead of Richard conning Anne.  I
guess this is the irony Christine was talking about.

jimmy

PS  I think that Richard really feels lonely because of his hump and Anne
really believes that marry Richard will help her and she hopes that she can
keep some of her power that way.  So she pretends to like him, but in the end
he doesn't really love her so he kills her and that makes her feel really sad.
And could Terence Hawkes please explain the fainting thing, so I can laugh with
him?

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:39:39 -0500
Subject: 8.0078  Re: Doubling
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0078  Re: Doubling

I want to thank Gabriel Egan (and others offline) for answering my question
about doubling.  I knew about the objection to the Fool and Cordelia doubling;
it's been made recurrently.  Of course, it's good to remain skeptical. How can
anyone now be sure that Armin played the Fool? Perhaps Armin played Gloucester
in <italic>Lear</italic>, and perhaps the Fool was played by a bright, young
actor who quite easily doubled as Cordelia.  Eh?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jeff Myers <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 20:15:18 GMT
Subject: 8.0077  Re: Star Trek Allusions
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0077  Re: Star Trek Allusions

Shakespeare's easy.  Star Trek even refers to Milton (or, as Ricardo Montalban
says, Meel-ton).  Kirk even identifies the specific line in Milton to which
Montalban refers.

Jeff Myers

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 15:14:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap

I'm slow in responding, since I'm now in Arlington, VA, and have only now set
up the computer -- this is a long-distance logging in, too!  So here's my (at
long distance fees) more than two cents' worth:

At the Shakespeare Rep this past fall/winter, Claudius is upstage, watching the
dumb show.  I believe the lights focused on his face, and his eyes visibly
widened at the sight of the poisoning.  He didn't move, as I recall, he merely
widened his eyes, and this was enough evidence to convict him in the eyes of
the whole audience.  (Oh yeah, and they kept in the line before the Nunnery
Scene in which he confesses, too).

This, in answer to 'how could Andy White, a man of the theatre, say such
things?'

In addition, without any physical evidence, or hope of evidence, Hamlet is not
in a position to ask that Claudius be deposed a la Bill Clinton in the Paula
Jones case.  The only evidence he has is a ghost, and a flinch.  Let the
lawyers scream and pull their hair, the dumb show is designed to reveal
Claudius' guilt for the audience's benefit, so that they know the titular hero
isn't just a raving maniac on a paranoid tear.

Andy White
Arlington, VA
(whew, check out the stack of book boxes, here!)
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.