Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: April ::
Re: Scofield; CFS Ado; PBS Show
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0333  Thursday, 9 April 1998.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 08 Apr 1998 08:44:05 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 9.0322  Re: Paul Scofield

[2]     From:   Louis Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 8 Apr 1998 09:26:50 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 9.0321 CSF Ado

[3]     From:   David Beauregard <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 8 Apr 1998 16:49:34 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0326  PBS Show


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 08 Apr 1998 08:44:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Paul Scofield
Comment:        SHK 9.0322  Re: Paul Scofield

Good to know Shakespeareans still get misty eyed in the presence of
greatness.  I am not among the privileged who have see Paul Scofield on
stage.  I was moved by his remarkable portrayal of the Ghost in the Mel
Gibson Hamlet.  He found all the pathos in the character, pathos I
hadn't known was there.  It taught me much about the play.

I just made a connection.  I once heard Mr. Gibson speak about the
film.  Seated behind him was Martin Scofield, the Shakespearean scholar
and son of Paul.  Can Kevin Bacon have been far away?

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 8 Apr 1998 09:26:50 -0500
Subject: 9.0321 CSF Ado
Comment:        RE: SHK 9.0321 CSF Ado

My deepest thanks to W. L. Godshalk for this careful, informative
description of this presentation.  For those of us who are unable to
travel the world to see productions of Shakespeare works, this kind of
report is a delight - and it gives us the opportunity to see the
interpretation of the parts of the play, which of course shows us a new
dimension of its larger point and moment.  Many of our correspondents
here have described the directorial treatment of individual moments in
the plays, but few have given us so thorough a presentation as has
Mr.(?) Godshalk.  May we see more of this kind of thing.

L. Swilley

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Beauregard <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 8 Apr 1998 16:49:34 EDT
Subject: 9.0326  PBS Show
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0326  PBS Show

To whom it may concern:

I would like to register a protest against Richard Nathan's attempt
("Possible Nonsense on PBS" 4/8/98) to suppress the proposed PBS program
on Shakespeare's secret life and the Elizabethan police state. One of
the joys of Shakespeare studies is the varied and stimulating conjecture
that it can call forth. And it is difficult to see what harm can be done
by this new direction. Several significant scholars have suggested on
very good grounds that WS was a Catholic-see for example the books and
articles of E. Honigmann, F. Brownlow, Gary Taylor, Peter Milward, Eric
Sams, Margarita Stocker, & Richard Wilson. We have had WS as defender of
the Tudor myth, WS as the devout skeptic (see the posting preceding
Nathan's-"Shakespeare is hardly ever doctrinaire, is he?  So we should
follow his example"), and WS as the proto-Marxist consumed with problems
of power (i.e., the will to power). These conjectural portraits of the
Bard are hardly based on the positivist criterion of "proven fact." So
why should Michael Wood not be allowed to explore the subject in his
direction, particularly since it seems a new and interesting possibility
in current scholarship?

Nathan can hardly be defending "the Elizabethan police state," which is
a proven fact. Is he therefore suggesting that we must suppress any
possible suggestion that WS may have been a Catholic? What is he afraid
of? The Catholic threat? After all, if he doesn't like the program, he
can simply not tune in or turn it off!

Cheers,
David Beauregard
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.