Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: January ::
Re: Redgrave at the Globe
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0136  Friday, 21 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Geralyn Horton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 11:18:55 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0121 Re: Redgrave at the Globe

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 10:04:02 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0121 Re: Redgrave at the Globe

[3]     From:   Robert Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 16 Jan 2000 11:17:18 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0121 Re: Redgrave at the Globe


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Geralyn Horton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 11:18:55 -0500
Subject: 11.0121 Re: Redgrave at the Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0121 Re: Redgrave at the Globe

>[b] risking coals of fire, BUT can anyone please explain to me in what
>ways a woman can illuminate so evident - and so crucial in the play that
>it is a 'father ' too - a father figure as Prospero?

In the same ways a man can write or act a female character and
illuminate a mother figure!  If an actress, trained to observe and
communicate human emotion, cannot understand Prospero, how in the world
can a mixed audience? Or female readers?  Were the boy actors who played
Shakespeare's women incompetent? Or infinitely more competent that
modern actresses???  Good Gawd, we all have fathers!  We understand the
father/child relationship, even if our perspective comes from the other
side of it.  Vanessa Redgrave has the distinct advantage of having a
father who was, literally as well as metaphorically, a Prospero
himself-and she is old enough now to have accumulated plenty to "say"
about what such a relationship is like, and what it means!

Plus, Redgrave proved on TV some years back that she can convincingly
play a male character.

If some aspects of the character are slighted when a woman enacts him,
why, that's illuminating too, isn't it?  And who can claim to be the
perfect Prospero?  Legend says a brilliant German actor turned down the
role, saying that only a Great Soul could adequately portray
Prospero-and no great soul ever stooped to the lies and humiliations of
a life on the stage!

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 10:04:02 -0800
Subject: 11.0121 Re: Redgrave at the Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0121 Re: Redgrave at the Globe

I wrote:

>Mike Jensen relates Reuter's description of Vanessa Redgrave, about to
>reform at the New Globe:

Whoops!  That should be "perform".

Cheers,
Se

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.