1998

Re: New Shakespeare Films by Branagh

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0976  Friday, 9 October 1998.

[1]     From:   Jad Duwaik <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 13:37:25 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0968  New Shakespeare Films by Branagh

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 22:43:04 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0968  Re: New Shakespeare Films by Branagh


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jad Duwaik <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 13:37:25 -0400
Subject: 9.0968  New Shakespeare Films by Branagh
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0968  New Shakespeare Films by Branagh

A friend made a comment that the reason Branagh stars in all his films
may be related to pressure from the producers. I think he's correct.
Branagh as a director will not attract the money necessary to fund a
movie, however, Branagh as the star certainly doesn't hurt..

Jad

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 22:43:04 -0700
Subject: 9.0968  Re: New Shakespeare Films by Branagh
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0968  Re: New Shakespeare Films by Branagh

> So, I take it you consider Robert DeNiro, Helena Bonham Carter and Tom
> Hulce neophyte actors?  Not Shakespeareans, but surely not neophytes.

My apologies, to you, Messrs. Holm, deNiro and all the others.
*Frankenstein* was a bad example of using neophyte actors, but it's
certainly a good example of self-indulgence.

And no big deal, Linda, no offence taken.  But I do actually think
there's rather a difference between a director making someone else look
good, and casting himself then making himself look good.

Cheers,
Sean.

Re: Stoppard; Gililov; Murdoch

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0975  Friday, 9 October 1998.

[1]     From:   Penelope Rixon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 16:27:06 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0965  Queries

[2]     From:   David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 11:12:54 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0965  Queries

[3]     From:   Paul Franssen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 09 Oct 1998 09:48:23 +0100
        Subj:   Murdoch


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Penelope Rixon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 16:27:06 -0000
Subject: 9.0965  Queries
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0965  Queries

M. Laroque:

Tom Stoppard lives here in London, and I would imagine a letter to the
publisher of the two plays, Faber & Faber, would be the best way of
seeing if he is available for an interview.

I believe The Invention of Love is about to open again in the West End.
It was a huge hit at the National Theatre here recently.

Penny Rixon

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 11:12:54 -0500
Subject: 9.0965  Queries
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0965  Queries

Francois Laroque wrote:

> I have a third question, a more personal one this time, concerning Ilia
> Gililov's recent book (Moscow Art, 1997), *The William Shakespeare
> Game*, apparently a great hit in Russia at the moment (going through its
> third reprinting apparently)? From what I have been told, this is
> another "new" biographical interpretation with an interesting decoding
> of "The Phoenix and the Turtle" attached to it. Has anyone heard about
> it or read it (is there a translation in English ?) If so, what are the
> reactions ?

Actually, the book you're talking about is an anti-Stratfordian one,
arguing that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by Roger
Manners, the Sixth (I believe) Earl of Rutland. It hasn't been
translated into English, but the Christian Science Monitor did an
article about Gililov on New Year's Eve last year.  The article is
available on the web at:

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/12/31/intl/intl.5.html

There are at least two reviews of the book available on the web.  Both
are in Russian and both are enthusiastic about Gililov's work but
entirely too credulous.  These are at:

http://www.russ.ru/journal/kniga/98-04-18/bernik.htm

http://www.russ.ru:8080/pegas/98-04-08.htm

Links to all three of the above articles can be found on the Shakespeare
Authorship web page, at

http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html

Just scroll all the way down to the bottom, and you'll find the links
there.

For those who don't read Russian, David Webb helpfully summarized these
two reviews in English on the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
newsgroup, and his post is archived on the web at:

http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=365110869&CONTEXT=907862769.523960395&hitnum=1

I have not read Gililov's book, but from what I've read in the above
articles, it appears to be typical anti-Stratfordian stuff, positing a
great "mystery" where none exists and throwing out documentary evidence
in favor of wild speculation.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul Franssen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 09 Oct 1998 09:48:23 +0100
Subject:        Murdoch

In reply to M. Laroque's question about Iris Murdoch: if he or his
student reads German, there is an article partly on Shakespeare in
Murdoch's *The Black Prince*:  Andreas H


Re: Representations of Clergy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0973  Friday, 9 October 1998.

[1]     From:   Richard Dutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 14:51:00 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640

[2]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 11:18:33 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640

[3]     From:   Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 12:06:23 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy

[4]     From:   Terence Martin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 11:10:22 -0500
        Subj:   Clergy Representations

[5]     From:   Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 14:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640

[6]     From:   Michael Yogev <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 09 Oct 1998 01:18:23 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy

[7]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 09 Oct 1998 17:52:52 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Dutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 14:51:00 +0100
Subject: 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640
Comment:        RE: SHK 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640

I think the Cardinal in *Women Beware Women* is an interesting equivocal
case. I played the role in a college production 20 years ago, and
couldn't make up my mind about his motives. Everything he *says* is
morally impeccable - he denounces the adultery of his brother Duke and
Bianca. When this seems to win round the Duke he does allow himself some
satisfaction at being the secondary agent of God's will: but is that
improper? Bianca is convinced the Cardinal is only interested in
ensuring that he remains heir to the kingdom - which may be true, but
she is biased, and the jury is out.

Richard Dutton

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 11:18:33 -0400
Subject: 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640

>A history colleague asked me if there were any positive representations
>of clergymen in early modern drama, and aside from the questionable
>influence of Friar Lawrence, and possibly Friars Bacon and Bungay, I
>couldn't think of any clergymen who seemed anything other than
>hypocritical or downright nasty (as in Webster).

Hmm.  I don't know about unequivocal, but it seems to me that while
Friar Bonaventure in *Tis Pity She's a Whore* is rather mean and scary,
there's no suggestion that he's insincere.

Might this have something to do with the fact that many, if not most, of
the clergy depicted are Roman Catholic?

MDA

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 12:06:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy

Many thanks to those of you who supplied names of clergymen in early
modern drama.  I have passed on the messages to the now overwhelmed
historian!

Helen

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Martin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 11:10:22 -0500
Subject:        Clergy Representations

Alan Somerset notes that:

"And while Friar Laurence fails in Romeo and Juliet, his motives are not
corrupt."

However, it would depend on the audience's point of view.  He is clearly
willing to marry them without parental consent, a sore point with many
Elizabethan parents.

Terence Martin

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 14:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0952  Q: Representations of Clergy 1560-1640

Certainly Friar Francis in Much Ado.  He is the first disinterested
party to acclaim Hero's innocence-by what he sees in her, not by
hearsay, and he also proposes a way of bringing the men to recognize it
as well-even though that does not work.

I also see nothing negative in the Friar in Measure for Measure, and his
intentions certainly seem admirable, even though he may be a bit
befuddled by what the Duke is asking of him.

Just off the top of my head --
Ed Pixley
SUNY-Oneonta

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Yogev <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 09 Oct 1998 01:18:23 +0200
Subject: 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy

A couple of respondents have mentioned the Friar in Much Ado as a fairly
positive figure.  This seems to me to ignore the final lines of his
suggestion to Leonato that Hero play dead for a time and thereby inspire
sympathy, regret, or some such vaguely remorseful emotions in her
accusers.  What good this will do, precisely, he is quite vague in
detailing, but he concludes that, if worse comes to worse and her
reputation is permanently ruined, she can always come and join a
convent.  Does this sound less than inviting to anyone but me? (these
lines are among several significant cuts made in Branagh's popular film
version of the play)

Michael Yogev

[7]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 09 Oct 1998 17:52:52 -0400
Subject: 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy

The Abbess in CoE is a sweetheart, but everything she says is in error.
Friar Laurance is a deadlier version of same.

Isabella is as false a cleric in Measure as Angelo and the Duke: all
three believe themselves above human passions. The point of the play is
to topple each. Thomas and Peter are euphemisms for penis.

Re: Othello and O.J.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0974  Friday, 9 October 1998.

[1]     From:   Richard A. Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 10:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0963  Re: Othello and O.J. with Editor's Note

[2]     From:   Penelope Rixon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 16:30:17 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0963  Re: Othello and O.J. with Editor's Note

[3]     From:   Barbara Geisey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 16:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Othello & O.J.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard A. Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 10:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0963  Re: Othello and O.J. with Editor's Note
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0963  Re: Othello and O.J. with Editor's Note

Gary Taylor wrote an op-ed piece on the similarity (don't have the
reference) and Barbara Hodgdon discusses it in her essay in
_Shakespeare, the Movie_, eds.  Lynda Boose and Richard Burt.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Penelope Rixon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 16:30:17 -0000
Subject: 9.0963  Re: Othello and O.J. with Editor's Note
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0963  Re: Othello and O.J. with Editor's Note

At this year's Edinburgh Festival there was an intriguing one-man play
called O.J/ Othello.  I didn't think it was entirely successful, but the
actor, Frank Shepherd, was good enough to make me think a lot more
carefully about the issues involved.  The play got pretty good notices
and sold out for its run, so it'll probably surface on tour somewhere.

Penny Rixon

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Barbara Geisey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Oct 1998 16:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Othello & O.J.

Perhaps this citation is the Othello - O.J. Simpson reference needed:
Kellerman, J. "Don Juan in Hell." LOS ANGELES MAGAZINE. v40n7 Jul 1995.
p.52-58. Abstract:  "In 1955 British psychiatrists John Todd and Kenneth
Dewhurst identified 'a dangerous form of psychosis' that they called the
Othello Syndrome.  The syndrome, which involved intense jealousy of a
spouse and delusions of infidelity often leading to violence is
discussed in relation to the O.J. Simpson case."   Source: Periodical
Abstracts via OhioLINK

Barbara T. Geisey, Director LRC
University of Akron - Wayne College

Q: New History of Early English Drama

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0972  Thursday, 8 October 1998.

From:           Chris J. Fassler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 09:12:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        New History of Early English Drama

Colleagues,

I wonder what the members of this list have to say about _The New
History of Early English Drama_ that came out from Columbia last year.
Would you use it / have you used it?  How?  Which aspects of it do you
find most/least helpful?

I've only begun to read, so I haven't formed an opinion yet, though I am
uncharacteristically optimistic.

Cordially,
Chris Fassler

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.