Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: March ::
Re: "Elizabeth"; DVD; Fools; Puritans; A Shrew;
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0438  Thursday, 11 March 1999.

[1]     From:   C. David Frankel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 11:23:35 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0421 Re: "Elizabeth"

[2]     From:   D. Maruyama <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:49:08 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0419 Re: DVD

[3]     From:   Lucia Anna Setari <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 14:13:30 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: Fools, Arlecchino

[4]     From:   Jack Heller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:29:46 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Puritans and Plays

[5]     From:   Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:37:13 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0431 Q: Taming of A Shrew

[6]     From:   Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:07:36 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0422 Re: Sins; Iago; Maps

[7]     From:   Ros King <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 19:27:08 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0417 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. David Frankel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 11:23:35 -0500
Subject: 10.0421 Re: "Elizabeth"
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0421 Re: "Elizabeth"

I take it as an axiom that plays (films, novels, etc.) reflect
contemporary concerns no matter where and when they may be set.
Elizabeth, ultimately, is not a historical document about an English
queen of the 16th century; whatever it says, and whether done well or
ill, it speaks to and about the current world.

cdf

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D. Maruyama <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:49:08 EST
Subject: 10.0419 Re: DVD
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0419 Re: DVD

Greetings:

DIVX is evil.  DIVX is a format Richard II would have thought of.
People can now rent and see DVDs in video stores.  This makes more sense
than the buy and throw it away scenario.

Laser is going out.  Tower is having a fire sale.  They are also
packaging coupons with some DVD player purchases to encourage the
purchase of titles.

Longevity?  I figure DVD will be like CD.  I have CDs that have degraded
over time.  They are not scatched or otherwise damaged.  CD rot, I
suppose is the term.  DVD rot seems to be highly probable.

Video tapes will still exist for a while.  You still can't get all
titles on Laser or DVD.  You can get most with tape.  It is the same
with CDs.  Some vinyl titles have yet to be released on CD even today.
This explains why record shows are still popular.  Vinyl can't die
because too many still need to find the obscure titles still unreleased
on CD.  Also, many highly obsessive audiophiles prefer vinyl to CD
regardless.

With the DVD audio specifications, multichannel audio, the growth of
home theater systems-the various companies seem poised to push this
do-everything-for-you format as the prime mover of home entertainment.
Consumers do seem to agree.  Many audiophiles love the 24/96 audio.
Many videophiles like the convenience of the format and DTS and Dolby
Digital.  It does not seem likely that DVD will fall on its face like
DAT, Philips' Digital tape, Beta.  Too much support seems to be out
there.  Now, you can play a DVD disc on your computer with the new
drives for PC now available.

d maruyama

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Lucia Anna Setari <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 14:13:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Re: Fools, Arlecchino

Lawrence Manley wrote:

>That's an interesting suggestion about English "patch," but from what
>I've read, Arlecchino, a French addition to the commedia, derives his
>costume from the wild man or wild "wode":  his patches were originally
>leaves and remain green and brown.  This I know for sure-he is scary,
>and anything but wise.  Never leave him a task to do, he'll turn into a
>nightmare, and he tends to "flip out" with the least provocation.
>Doesn't seem like a Sufi wise man to me.

And:

> I turned my attention (for completely
>different reasons) to an old essay bby John H. Long on "The Balla Medley
>and the Fool," SP 67 (1970).  Noting that the term "medley" (meaning
>"musical hotch-poth") is only cited by the OED from 1819, Long examines
>a number of Eliabethan ballad medlies (which mingled bits from many
>different ballads) and goes on to connect "medley" with "motley"
>(Hakewell in David's Vow, 1622, speaks of "motley cloth, or a meddly
>colour") and thus with "patch."  He also notes that Cardinal Wolsey's
>jester (geez, he had one?) was nicknamed Patch.

I started to wonder if  'pazzo' could really come from 'patch just
because of Cardinal Wolsey's jester nicknamed Patch and of Florio's
explanation of  the Italian word 'pazzo' (which is 'madman' or 'very
extravagant man', and has no connection at all with jesters, but in the
figure of the Neapolitan 'Pazziariello' ) as "fool, patch.." etc.

As to the  Italian Arlecchino, I agree that in its origin it is not
wise.  But  in our Commedia dell'Arte Arlecchino didn't remain always
the same character. It was first a sort of 'Zani' (that is a silly
servant John) and would speak Bergomask dialect, but afterwards it  grew
into a wise/fool and at last it spoke Venetian.

Italian players of  Commedia dell'Arte made their characters well known
in Europe and in England too, as you all know (the word 'zany'was
introduced in England by them , and Shakespeare too in many plays and
expecially in The Tempest took some inspiration from Italian comedians).

It seemed to me very interesting  if while the word 'zany' came from
Italian stage to  English common language, the word 'patch' coming with
wandering jesters  produced the Italian  word 'pazzo.' But, since the
term 'pazzo' was already in Italian language in XIII cent., I think that
it is more likely that the two terms 'patch', as professional fool (like
Wolsey's jester...), and 'pazzo', as madman and natural clown, were
linked to each other by Florio because of their similarity, but have
different origins.

(I hope my bad English might be understandable...)

L.Anna S.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:29:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Puritans and Plays

John Savage wrote:

>Putting on plays in Shakespeare's day was very
>much an iffy business.  Questions of the plague aside, powerful Puritan
>forces regarded such productions as immoral and constantly tried to
>close the theatres down.  They felt that women would be dishonored and
>degraded if they appeared on stage.  My feeling is that the theatrical
>troupes went along with this, no matter how much they would have
>preferred having women play women's parts, because the important thing
>for them was to stay in business and keep eating.

I would be very careful of using the term "Puritan" for theater
opponents.  First, not all opponents of theater were Puritans; Stephen
Gardiner, the bishop of Winchester, opposed the stage because of its
anti-Papal tendencies. Second, people who were noted as Puritans went to
plays occasionally; contemporary records show their attendance at _A
Game at Chess_. And third, various studies are now showing Puritan
sympathies in works by such dramatists as Thomas Dekker, John Webster,
Thomas Middleton, Thomas Heywood, etc.

Jack Heller

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:37:13 -0600
Subject: 10.0431 Q: Taming of A Shrew
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0431 Q: Taming of A Shrew

For a stage history see the introduction to the new Cambridge edition of
A Shrew, just out.

Frank Whigham

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0422 Re: Sins; Iago; Maps
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0422 Re: Sins; Iago; Maps

> I don't find Hamlet to be slothful. For a couple of real sluggards, try

For sloth, substitute acedia, which means spiritual sloth, despair, what
we would today probably regard as depression, inability to find any
meaning, disgust with life, etc., unless, of course, we still take
"spirit" seriously, in which case acedia will do.

     Roger

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ros King <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 19:27:08 +0000
Subject: 10.0417 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0417 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage

There's a world of difference between Mary Frith doing a turn at the
Fortune - stand-up banter and a bit of lute playing - and actually
playing the character of Moll in the Roaring Girl. The court citation
may suggest the former, but not the latter. Playing oneself is not easy,
and this is a major role, not a cameo. I would have thought that
watching Mary watching a professional boy/young man playing Moll would
have afforded any audience much more fun: two shows for the price of
one.

However, it's not impossible that the prosecutors did not want, or were
not able, to distinguish between the two i.e. that Moll's singing and
playing (by the actor within the play), was deemed to be Mary's.  In
1982 the director Michael Bogdanov was subjected to a private
prosecution for procuring and 'being party to the commission by a man of
an act of gross indecency' under the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 - for
directing The Romans in Britain (National theatre, London). Prosecutors
and reporters of the case in the Times seemed incapable of
distinguishing between a representation on the stage and an actual act
of buggery. He too faced imprisonment. The case was dropped - which was
distressing to the defence since, having been put through the misery,
they wanted to argue the case through to a proper judgement. Now Oliver
Stone is up against it. The three cases are, of course, all slightly
different but the notion that representation is the same as the thing
being represented is a fallacy which almost always characterises
anti-theatricality and may be operative with regard to Moll/Mary. We
would need a transcript of the trial to know.

Ros King
School of English and Drama
Queen Mary and Westfield College
University of London
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.