Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: February ::
Re: Shakespeare in Love
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0266  Tuesday, 16 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 15 Feb 1999 08:51:18 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0261 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[2]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 15 Feb 1999 11:28:00 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0265 No Bed for Bacon

[3]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 15 Feb 1999 20:48:26 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0261 Re: Shakespeare in Love


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 15 Feb 1999 08:51:18 EST
Subject: 10.0261 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0261 Re: Shakespeare in Love

>I saw for the second time this weekend Shakespeare in Love. I was
>clearly incorrect in my attempting to make a pun about Kit's death, but
>I stand firm that there was so much gender play in the film as to NOT
>mark it as simply straight.

Yes, Hardy, I think you're right.  I rather liked Stoppard's (?) neat
little resolution of the "young man" question, making him (through
Viola's cross-dressing) both the boy of the putatively homosexual kiss
in the rowboat, and the Dark Lady of the sonnets (except that Paltrow's
female character, being blonde and sweet, wasn't "dark" in any sense).
Hardly a likelihood, but given the practices of the players of the day,
an interesting speculation to contemplate; I wonder how many of the
"boys would be girls" in their private lives when it suited them, to
play practical jokes, or otherwise confuse those around them?

Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 15 Feb 1999 11:28:00 +0000
Subject: 10.0265 No Bed for Bacon
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0265 No Bed for Bacon

>According to an article in Entertainment Weekly, Feb. 12, 1999, "Tom
>Stoppard says he flipped through the book 'when he first got the job'
>and found it 'of no use'." I do think the film clearly draws on the
>world and spirit of the book. Stoppard might helpfully admit that, but
>he has, in my judgment, every right to be proud of his (and Marc
>Norman's?) contributions to the plot and proud of his own witty and
>sometimes trenchant and moving writing.

Thanks to Charles Frey for his informative summary of No Bed for Bacon.
The point isn't whether Stoppard has a "right to be proud," but whether
credit was given where it was due, and more important to most of us than
credit, I suspect, points and royalties. As one who has suffered from a
similar ripoff, I hope the authors sock it to them, and sock it to them
good! What jury could ignore the obvious similarities between the two
stories. "Of no use," indeed!

Alas, it takes a good deal of money to get even the credit. Some years
ago Art Buchwald and two other writers went after some movie-maker that
used their work without giving them credit. They won the case, but it
cost them several millions of dollars, more than the credit was worth.
Buchwald, who didn't need the money, declared that all he cared about
was justice. Justice is expensive when it comes to credit in filmmaking,
far more expensive than most writers can afford.

Stephanie Hughes

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 15 Feb 1999 20:48:26 -0000
Subject: 10.0261 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0261 Re: Shakespeare in Love

>I saw for the second time this weekend Shakespeare in Love. I was
>clearly incorrect in my attempting to make a pun about Kit's death, but
>I stand firm that there was so much gender play in the film as to NOT
>mark it as simply straight.

I haven't seen the film yet, but read a review which gave a line from a
boatman (echoing the traditional taxi-driver).

"I had that Marlowe in the back of my boat once".

I don't know how the line is delivered in the film, but might this be
the pun that Hardy was looking for?

Thomas
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.