1999

Re: Shakespeare in Love

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0286  Friday, 19 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 14:20:14 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0282 Re: Shakespeare in Love 'It's a mystery'

[2]     From:   Kate Welch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 13:34:31 GMT
        Subj:   Re: Shakespeare in Love

[3]     From:   Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 17:37:10 -0000
        Subj:   Re: Shakespeare in Love

[4]     From:   Douglas Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 15:16:11 -0500
        Subj:   RE: Shakespeare in Love

[5]     From:   Drew Whitehead <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Feb 1999 08:36:35 +1000 (GMT+1000)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0282 Re: Shakespeare in Love


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 14:20:14 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 10.0282 Re: Shakespeare in Love 'It's a mystery'
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0282 Re: Shakespeare in Love 'It's a mystery'

In addition to Richard Dutton's comments about this, posters of a
certain age will recognise it as a line from one of Toyah Wilcox's punk
classics.  The same Toyah Wilcox whose boobs graced Jarman's Tempest
when she played Miranda (it was essential to the plot).  And the same
Toyah Wilcox who now does voices for the Teletubbies.

The Teletubbies studio is just outside Stratford, which prompted Radio
Times to put them on the front cover just over a year ago with the
headline, 'Bigger than Shakespeare'.

That Tom Stoppard aint half a clever bloke.

Jonathan Hope
Middlesex University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kate Welch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 13:34:31 GMT
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare in Love

Thomas Larque wrote:

>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?

The line is actually "I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once".
This is how it appears on page 37 of the screenplay (Faber, 1999) and
how it was delivered in the film. It was misquoted by several careless
reviewers.

Kate Welch
Shakespeare Institute Library
Stratford-upon-Avon
Warwickshire

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 17:37:10 -0000
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare in Love

>"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?

>No I don't think so.  The line was delivered as yet another pun on the
>Marlowe-Shakespeare rivalry.  The boatman recognizes him as an actor
>while he is trying to chase down Vioa/Thomas and says it in a boasting
>sort of "I know someone famous" manner.

This phenomenon of British life led to the true story often told by
Peter Ustinov (I think) of the taxi driver who said to him: "I had that
Bertrand Russell in the back of my taxi once and I said to him 'Here,
Bertie, what's it all about then?' And, do you know, he couldn't tell
me."

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Douglas Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 15:16:11 -0500
Subject:        RE: Shakespeare in Love

A while back several SHAKSPERians asked about the availability of the
script for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.  It has just been published by Miramax
Books/Hyperion in the US and by Faber in the UK under the title
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE: A SCREENPLAY by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard.

There is another movie tie-in book by a very similar title, SHAKESPEARE
IN LOVE: THE LOVE POETRY OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, which is a collection
of Shakespeare's verse mixed in with snippets and photos from the
movie.  Make sure you order the one you want, since it's easy to mix the
two up (from a marketing standpoint, precisely the point, I suppose).

For those interested in ordering by computer: for some reason, the
script does not show up on the Amazon.com site in the US, but it does
show up on the Amazon.co.uk site.  (This may have been corrected by the
time you read this.)  You can order the US edition at
www.barnesandnoble.com for 20% off.

I'm not associated with any of the above businesses.

Cheers,
Douglas Lanier
University of New Hampshire

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Drew Whitehead <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Feb 1999 08:36:35 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Subject: 10.0282 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0282 Re: Shakespeare in Love

>The
>case which comes to mind is the one in which Superman proved that he was
>stronger than Captain Marvel (or at least had better lawyers).  I think
>that there was evidence in that case that actual text was appropriated
>in a few instances.  Captain Marvel has since come back to life, but
>only because Superman bought him.

Never did I expect to find a reference to either Superman or Captain
Marvel in these pages.  Well done Larry Weiss!

Drew Whitehead

Re: Freeman Coriolanus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0283  Thursday, 18 February 1999.

[1]     From:   <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 10:14:55 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0273 Q: Freeman Coriolanus

[2]     From:   Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 10:40:42 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0273 Q: Freeman Coriolanus


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 10:14:55 EST
Subject: 10.0273 Q: Freeman Coriolanus
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0273 Q: Freeman Coriolanus

Dear Lee,

Morgan Freeman played Coriolanus in the 1979 New York Shakespeare
Festival production in Central Park.  It wasn't a movie.

Regards

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 10:40:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0273 Q: Freeman Coriolanus
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0273 Q: Freeman Coriolanus

Dear Lee Zhao, The video (not a film) of Morgan Freeman in Coriolanus
from a 1979 New York Shakespeare Festival production is cited in
Shakespeare on Screen: An International Filmography and Videography (New
York and London: Neal Schuman, 1990), p.49 (Item #66). I compiled this
tome (with Annabelle Melzer) in the hope that students could easily
answer these kinds of questions with a trip to a library reference room.
The entry points out that screening was possible, at least in 1990, in
the TOFT (Theatre on Film and Tape) Collection at the New York Public
Library, Lincoln Center Branch. Sincerely, Ken Rothwell

Re: Groundlings/Literacy; Impeachment; Melbourne

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0284  Thursday, 18 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 11:30:37 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0276 Re: Groundlings/Literacy

[2]     From:   Giovanni Tallino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 08:57:45 -0900
        Subj:   Re: Fwd: SHK 10.0268 Bloom on Hyde

[3]     From:   Michael Mullin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 03:03:54 +1100
        Subj:   Shakespearean Melbourne?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 11:30:37 -0600
Subject: 10.0276 Re: Groundlings/Literacy
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0276 Re: Groundlings/Literacy

Thus Terence Hawkes:

>Dear Rick Jones: You write: 'This discussion began as a response to
>Terence Hawkes's assertion that Shakespeare's "illiterate" audience
>helped create Romeo and Juliet.'  Not me, guv.  In my comments on
>Shakespeare's audience, I was careful to make no use of the word
>'illiterate'.

I apologize.  His term was indeed "non-literate."  I fail to see that it
makes much difference in context, but I grant that I misquoted.

Rick Jones

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Giovanni Tallino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 08:57:45 -0900
Subject: SHK 10.0268 Bloom on Hyde
Comment:        Re: Fwd: SHK 10.0268 Bloom on Hyde

A Polonius on the outside with Iago on the inside is just what a
president with the appearance of a Hotspur and the substance of a
Falstaff deserves.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Mullin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 03:03:54 +1100
Subject:        Shakespearean Melbourne?

Hi, Tim,

The MTC (Melbourne Theatre Company) do some fine, mainstage
Shakespeare.  Occasionally the Playbox Theatre does studio Shakespeare
and sometimes Japanese. The Merricreek players do outdoor Shakespeare in
the Botanic Gardens during the summer. Melbourne Uni's theatre sometimes
puts on a Shakespeare during term time.

I divide my time between the University of Illinois and Melbourne. One
of my projects is CyberShakespeare <www.cybershakespeare.uiuc.edu> which
I developed with some Melbourne multimedia people. What are you doing
there?

Cheers,
Michael

Re: Suzuki (ZZZZ-zuki) Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0285  Thursday, 18 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 22:15:05 EST
        Subj:   ZZZZ-zuki Lear

[2]     From:   Asami Nakayama <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 18:57:12 +0900
        Subj:   Re: Suzuki Lear


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 22:15:05 EST
Subject:        ZZZZ-zuki Lear

Hardy Cook remembers a stunning Lear directed by Suzuki, in DC, roughly
1979.

zzzz-uki Lear, did you say?

A group of people who saw a Suzuki-influenced (directed?) production in
Milwaukee a few years later was stunned into sleep.  At almost any
moment diring the performance, roughly a third of the audience was
unconscious.

Most scenes were staged with the actors (many in wonderful Japanese
samuri costumes, at least one in a modern white nurse's uniform)
standing in a line directing their speeches straight out to the audience
in a kind of high-pitched, unpunctuated monotone.  One vivid moment
stands out.  In one scene the Fool was sitting under Lear's chair,
following the dialogue in a paperback copy of the Arden edition.  The
King turned to him and commanded, "Stop reading."

In the audience was the then-director of the NEA; he was also at times
asleep.  At the end of nap-time, about a third of the audience rose for
a standing ovation while others wandered dazed back into the open air.
Something was lost in translation.

For me it was one of those fascinating experiences of esthetic
relativities.

Ever,
Steve Ukiwitz

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Asami Nakayama <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Feb 1999 18:57:12 +0900
Subject:        Re: Suzuki Lear

Several years ago I saw the Suzuki Lear in Japan. The same version was
also broadcast on TV. Every character was played by a male actor, except
for the Fool, who appeared in a nurse's costume. Lear's daughters,
including of course Cordelia, had beards. Only the actor playing as Lear
was British, speaking in English, and others were Japanese, speaking
their lines in Japanese. Needless to say, Tadashi Suzuki's Lear is an
experiment-not a Japanesque extravaganza kind aiming at an enthusiastic
reception by the West, but an unaffected, Very Japanese type. Many in
the  audiences must have the theatre programme or the video tape
recorded from TV. Perhaps some of them are on our list?

Re: Shakespeare in Love

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0282  Thursday, 18 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Peter Hyland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 09:40:58 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[2]     From:   Richard Dutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 17:59:23 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 14:05:51 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Hyland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 09:40:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love

I think the questions about the line "I had that Marlowe in the back of
my boat once" can easily be answered. It's an in-joke that will be
recognized by readers of the British satirical journal PRIVATE EYE, a
running joke in which a taxi driver (usually given a name like Ron
Mandelson or Mick Bonker) expresses his opinion about some current issue
that usually involves his view that hanging or flogging is too good for
someone, and always ends with "I had that Prince Charles [or Tom
Stoppard or Margaret Thatcher or anyone] in the back of my cab once" and
then usually breaks off at that point with "(cont. p. 94)". The double
entendre is always there; it is particularly appropriate for Marlowe,
and no doubt Stoppard thought so too.

Peter Hyland

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Dutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 17:59:23 -0000
Subject: 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love

I just wanted to weigh in, as someone who has only just managed to see
the film, and say what a marvelous achievement it is, wherever exactly
Stoppard and the others got their ideas from. Any script that actually
manages to introduce Edmund Tilney into a work of entertainment (and
then cast Simon Callow in the role) has my vote, even if they get the
workings of his office as Master of the Revels as gloriously wrong as
they do so many of the other 'historical' features of the story. I have
to agree that the line "I had that Marlowe in the back of my boat once"
is as Melissa Cook reports it: the analogies between Thames boats and
modern taxis only go so far, and I doubt if sex of any description would
be feasible unless you beached the boat altogether. I wondered about
another pun, however: Henslowe (of all people) repeatedly assuring
everyone that the final performance would work out all right (despite
all expectations to the contrary), saying 'It's a mystery'. Which I
think meant both that it was in the hands of forces beyond human
understanding, and that it was a 'mystery' in the old sense of a trade
or profession (as, strikingly, in 'mystery plays'). I think it's a long
time since any movie went to the Oscars with puns of that calibre
working for it.

        Cheers, Richard Dutton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999 14:05:51 -0500
Subject: 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0275 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Robin Hamilton wrote:

>>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!
>>Stephanie Hughes
>
>I sympathise and agree (but copyright in ideas as opposed to form of
>words is tricky-Larry?  Comment?), but No Bed For Bacon was published in
> 1941, so it may be technically out of copyright.

If it entered the public domain in UK, it is probably "out of copyright"
here too.  But I suspect that it isn't.  I do not believe (for reasons
too technical and boring to go into) that the copyright is likely to
have been allowed to expire in the US; and I think the term in the UK
was longer than the US term in 1941.

As for "ideas," Robin is correct.  The rubric is that ideas are not
copyrightable, but expressions of ideas are.  There is an occasional
issue as to where to draw the line.  So-called scenes d'affaires (such
as a car chase up and down the hills of San Francisco) are not
protected.  But there are a few cases (although I haven't seen a new one
in years) in which the appropriation of plot line, characterization and
incidents is so pronounced that the court finds an infringement.  The
case which comes to mind is the one in which Superman proved that he was
stronger than Captain Marvel (or at least had better lawyers).  I think
that there was evidence in that case that actual text was appropriated
in a few instances.  Captain Marvel has since come back to life, but
only because Superman bought him.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.