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 and Shakespeare in Love
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0451  Monday, 15 March 1999.

[1]     From:   C. David Frankel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 12 Mar 1999 08:44:03 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0441 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[2]     From:   Frances Barasch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 12 Mar 1999 09:57:32 EST
        Subj:   shakespeare in love

[3]     From:   Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 14 Mar 1999 08:57:44 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. David Frankel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 12 Mar 1999 08:44:03 -0500
Subject: 10.0441 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0441 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Judy Lewis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > says:

>David Frankel wrote:  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  Elizabeth, ultimately, is not a historical document about an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.
>
>Enlighten me.  What does it speak?

I don't know if I can enlighten you (or anyone else), but I'd suggest as
a starting point thinking about the relationships between the politics
of the film and its representation of political maneuvering and
particular situations today.  I might also suggest thinking about what
Elizabeth's transformation in the film (from a young, apparently
romantic, princess to a non-human queen (the makeup, the hair, etc)
means, especially when paired with Walsingham's character who (as the
titles at the end make clear) is her other self (in the fictive world of
the film-I don't give a fig what their relationship might have been in
"real" [there's some more scary quotation marks] life-except for when I
look at history).

C. David Frankel
Visiting Assistant Professor
  of Theatre/Academic Advisor
University of South Florida

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frances Barasch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 12 Mar 1999 09:57:32 EST
Subject:        shakespeare in love

Judy Lewis replies to FrancEs Barasch (FrancIs is for other gender) that
the cross-dresser shown in film was Anjou and not Alencon.  No, it was
Alencon mistaken for his older brother, the cross-dresser Anjou.  My
students wanted to know about "Alencon's cross-dressing" as per film.
Pardon my shortcut message, but my point was the questions gave me an
opportunity to offer correct "historical background."  Catherine
attempted to mate Anjou (the cross-dresser) with Elizabeth but Anjou
would have none of it, so she turned to the younger Alencon (called
'Monsieur' and not a cross-dresser), who did go to England to woo Eliz.
After Anjou became Henri III, Monsieur lobbied for title to Anjou, which
his brother eventually granted.  Monsieur's Alencon/Anjou titles may
have confused the writers.  The film plays havoc with all this history,
but I thought THAT was already agreed by all.  BTW: I favor short emails
and surely omitted some other fine detail to make my general point.
FrancEs Barasch

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 14 Mar 1999 08:57:44 EST
Subject: 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

>Question 47. (two points)
>
>There are more historical inaccuracies in
>
>(A)  Shakespeare in Love
>(B)  Macbeth
>(C)  Henry VIII
>(D)  Richard III
>(E)  Elizabeth
>
>Cheers,
>Skip Nicholson
>South Pasadena (CA) HS
>
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
  >>

You forgot (F) All of the above.

Carol Barton
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.