Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: March ::
MV Film; Memories; Great Lakes; Ideology
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0315.  Tuesday, 4 March 1997.

[1]     From:   Kenneth S. Rothwell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 3 Mar 1997 09:46:14 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0304 Re: MV Film

[2]     From:   Tom Bishop <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 3 Mar 1997 10:21:02 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0289  Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes

[3]     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 3 Mar 1997 13:22:27 +0200
        Subj:   Shakespeare on the Great Lakes

[4]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 3 Mar 1997 23:00:18 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0295   Ideology


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth S. Rothwell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 3 Mar 1997 09:46:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0304 Re: MV Film
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0304 Re: MV Film

Dear Friends, Brooke Brod is probably correct about the Welles MV. It's
listed in the British Film Institute on-line catalog as an "unfinished
project circa 1969." More interestingly we're also told that "footage
from this project can be glimpsed in Oja KODAR'S 1988 feature, JADED."
I've been meaning for some time to track down JADED to see for myself,
but I've been too busy tracking down the current crop of Shakespeare
movies. Ken Rothwell

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Bishop <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 3 Mar 1997 10:21:02 -0500
Subject: 8.0289  Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0289  Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes

Harry Hill writes of his memories of various people quoting Shakespeare

>My French Canadian neighbours in Montreal do it, my
>friends in Norwegian mountain villages do it, I heard a German
>hitchhiker get quite far with "Sein oder nicht sein; das ist hier die
>Frage". The ones for whom it is far less of a habit have been, I think,
>my students, but I intend to ask them tomorrow, and tomorrow.

I think I hear a song coming on:

"Old do it, youth do it, educated and uncouth do it,
Let's do it; let's quote the Bard.
Actors whenever you look do it;  Joseph Banks and Captain Cook do it;
Let's do it; let's quote the Bard.

"In Montreal the PQ does it, but they do it in French,
Jacques Chirac too does it, though it makes him blench;
Norwegians fishing on the fjords do it,
People say in London even bawds do it.
Let's do it, let's quote the Bard."

You can all continue on your own.

Tom

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 3 Mar 1997 13:22:27 +0200
Subject:        Shakespeare on the Great Lakes

The correspondence on this subject has been edifying.  However, I want
to correct Andrew White who thinks expurgated Shakespeare postdates the
great days of Shakespeare on the minds and tongues of ordinary people.
Not so.  Bowdler's first *Family Shakespeare* (in which all the hells
and damns are gone but some of the best bawdy undisturbed, as his
sister, who did much of the work, did not understand it) appeared in
1807, if memory serves.  At the very time Shakespeare was being
disseminated by the countless thousands of fascicles (ancestors of
modern paperbacks) by Charles Knight (first edn.  1838-43), the
expurgated ("bowdlerized") texts were also proliferating.  Note that the
two movements are related to each other.  It is precisely because Shak.
had the potential to become a household property that the Bowdlers felt
impelled to make him safe for maiden ears (yes, ears; Knight intended
that the plays should be read *aloud* en famille, as the installments of
Dickens's novels were in the same years).  And cf. the title *Family
Shakespeare*.  Note that the process the Bowdlers started is still
alive:  V-chips for kiddies of some families in our time to block some
of the  sex and violence on t.v.  We laugh at the Bowdlers for missing
the bawdy and catching the irreligious expletives.  But we tolerate
intolerable violence while up front sex is rated R.  My wife dared to
teach Romeo and J. out of an unexpurgated edn. to 9th graders 30 yrs ago
in Montogmery County MD.  The beginning highschoolers responded quite
well, on the whole.  But that was a  different time from both the 1840s
and the 1990s.

Cheers!
John

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 3 Mar 1997 23:00:18 GMT
Subject: 8.0295   Ideology
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0295   Ideology

Sean K. Lawrence comments

> One assumes that students who felt that there was
> nothing worth commenting on [in Shakespeare's texts]
> would not sign up for the course.

Paul Hawkins's comment was that he merely enabled students to form their
own ideas about literary texts.  As Lawrence notes, the existence of a
course presumes that there is value in commenting, and signing up for
the course indicates acceptance of this proposition, which is itself an
idea about literary texts.

> Even to say that "there is nothing worth
> commenting on" would be to comment.

But it would be nothing more, and so would not attract high marks.

> I would even say that all teaching, even lecturing, is
> a sort of dialectic between my concerns and those of
> my students, in which their responses condition me as
> much as mine conditions them.

Really "as much as"? The students know you are paid to be there, for
which they might expect a certain amount of guiding. If you're pointing
them away from blind alleys (such as the temptation to treat a play as
merely a poem) and towards the richer pastures, you're conditioning them
more than they are conditioning you.

Paul Hawkins maintains the position that 'anything goes':

> I tell my students that in my class and in
> their papers, any response is in order, as long as it
> can be developed and argued.

Sexist, disablist, racist, and homophobic attitudes can all be developed
and argued by students in their essays.  Might these be "in order", or
should they be noted and refuted? (I don't mean statements that suggest
that texts contain these attitudes, but rather statements which are
themselves offensive. "The English win the war because the French, then
as now, are too effeminate" might be an example.)

Gabriel Egan
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.