Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: March ::
Re: Shakespeare in Love
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0392  Saturday, 8 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Mike Sirofchuck <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 5 Mar 1999 12:02:20 -0900
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 5 Mar 1999 21:39:06 -0000
        Subj:   RE: Shakespeare in Love

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 05 Mar 1999 15:04:10 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[4]     From:   Judy Lewis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Mar 1999 12:18:06 +1300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[5]     From:   Laura Fargas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Mar 1999 11:05:58 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0382 Re: Cosby; Quill; Charity

[6]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 5 Mar 1999 20:14:33 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[7]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 5 Mar 1999 20:22:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0382 Re: Cosby; Quill; Charity

[8]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 05 Mar 1999 17:13:56 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[9]     From:   Hilary Thimmesh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Mar 1999 10:49:27 -0600
        Subj:   shakespeare in love

[10]    From:   Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Mar 1999 20:53:44 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[11]    From:   Steve Neville <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Mar 1999 17:17:03 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[12]    From:   Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 08 Mar 1999 08:52:35 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[13]    From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 05 Mar 1999 13:26:10 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[14]    From:   Drew Whitehead <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Mar 1999 15:59:56 +1000 (GMT+1000)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Sirofchuck <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 5 Mar 1999 12:02:20 -0900
Subject: 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Martin Green  writes:,

>With respect to Douglas McQueen-Thompson's "vague feeling" that
>something in "Shakespeare in Love" presented an historical problem: the
>WHOLE movie presents an historical problem. That's why I didn't like it,
>good as it is in many respects. True, it purports to be nothing more
>than a fantasy on the life of Shakespeare, but since NOTHING about
>Shakespeare in the movie has a basis in fact, and since most of the
>people who see it will be unaware of that, they will form incorrect
>impressions which will bedevil a generation of academicians. As
>Shakespeare might say, "That movie will smack of little wit/ When
>Professors of Shakespeare gnash their teeth over it."

I am reminded of the immortal words of the theme song of Mystery Science
Theater 30000: "If you're wondering how they eat and breathe / And other
science stuff You should say to yourself, 'it's just a show, / I should
really just relax.'

I doubt if "academicians" will be bedeviled; however, those of us who
are high school and college freshman English teachers will be.  And what
a great opportunity when the misconceptions arise to take advantage of
that venerable old war horse, the "teachable moment".

I hope to use non "R" segments of the film with my students as an
exercise in identifying the incorrect/false information.

Mike Sirofchuck
Kodiak High School

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 5 Mar 1999 21:39:06 -0000
Subject:        RE: Shakespeare in Love

The devilish question of fact emerges again:

>True, it purports to be nothing more
>than a fantasy on the life of Shakespeare,
>but since NOTHING about Shakespeare in
>the movie [$ in Love] has a basis in fact, and since most of the
>people who see it will be unaware of that, they will form incorrect
>impressions which will bedevil a generation of
>academicians.

Oh I don't know: the works of 'Shakespeare' were written by an
playwright-actor (fact 1), the Rose was operated by an entrepreneur
(fact 2), a crown servant licenses performance (fact 3), creativity is
conditioned by the availability of outlets (fact 4).

That's more than enough historical material with which to counter
liberal humanist dogma about poetic genius.

Gabriel Egan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 05 Mar 1999 15:04:10 -0800
Subject: 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0375 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Mike Jensen writes that he is,

>more bothered by things that would NEVER have happened, such as Queen
>Liz showing up at the theater to take in the show.  I seem to be the
>only one bothered by this.

I think of it as a sort of parody and oversimplification of political
criticism.  Instead of looking for a deus ex machine, we look for power
to intervene, in the person of a political figure.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.