2000

Re: "The Boys . . ."

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0139  Friday, 21 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Terry Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 10:58:07 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.01261 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)

[2]     From:   C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 20:22:31 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.0117 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)

[3]     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jan 2000 01:39:56 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.01261 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terry Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 10:58:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 11.01261 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.01261 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)

>Hello all, "The Boys from Syracuse" was staged at Stratford Ontario
>about 10 years ago.
>
>It's an excellent musical with 2 showstoppers: "This Must Be Love
>('cause I Don't feel so well)" and "Falling in Love with Love Is Falling
>for Make Believe."

I think you mean "This CAN'T Be Love," not "This MUST Be Love" (both
lines appear in the song, but the former is the title).  While the score
is a very strong one, even by the high standards of Rogers and Hart, and
the songs you refer to have become standards, the one that brings down
the house is "Sing for Your Supper."

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 20:22:31 -0500
Subject: 11.0117 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.0117 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)

The Boys from Syracuse (1938, film version -1940) and Comedy of Errors
derive from Plautus' Menaechmi; the Zero Mostel film referred to is, I
think, the 1966 A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, also
derived from Plautus, but not the Menaechmi.  According to the Internet
Movie Database, there was a CBC television production of Boys from
Syracuse in 1986.

cdf

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jan 2000 01:39:56 -0500
Subject: 11.01261 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.01261 Re: Rat Plots (Err.)

Hello again, the Internet Movie Database lists the Stratford Ontario
Production of "The Boys from Syracuse" (1986)

I imagine it's a film/tape of the stage version. I've no idea how
available it is. Likely not in your local video store.

John Ramsay
Welland Ontario

Playboy MND

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0138  Friday, 21 January 2000.

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 18:13:17 -0500
Subject:        Playboy MND

Playboy is doing a live broadcast of their version of A Midsummer
Night's Dream.

Details and images may be found at this URL:

http://playboy.com/live/midsummer1999/index.html

Re: Redgrave at the Globe

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0136  Friday, 21 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Geralyn Horton <This email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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


Seeking Enlightenment

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0137  Friday, 21 January 2000.

From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 16:55:05 -0500
Subject:        Seeking Enlightenment

I have kept expecting someone else to eventually bring this question up,
but since it hasn't happened so far, I'll ask it:

What exactly is the benefit of knowing about pornographic versions of
Shakespeare's works? or that a current Penthouse centerfold identifies
herself with Juliet?

Just wondering,
Jack Heller

Re: "Doctors"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0135  Friday, 21 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Yvonne Bruce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 14:57:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re SHK 11.0108 "Doctors"

[2]     From:   Robert Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 16 Jan 2000 11:03:26 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0125 Re: "Doctors"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Yvonne Bruce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 14:57:46 -0500
Subject: 11.0108 "Doctors"
Comment:        Re SHK 11.0108 "Doctors"

John Briggs is absolutely right to get us back on track, but please
allow yet another digression, as it comes in response to a query-what
does Miss Manners say?--about the correct use of titles. The following
is taken from <Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior>
(Warner Books, 1979). I quote both the reader's question and Miss
Manners' Response:

Dear Miss Manners:

I was introduced to a Dr. Soandso at a party and was embarrassed to have
him say, after I had discussed at length an interesting disease in my
family, that he didn't know anything about medicine. I suppose he was a
doctor of philosophy, but should he then call himself a doctor?

Gentle Reader:

What you have there is either an honest medical practitioner or an
uncertain Ph.D. Only people of the medical profession correctly use the
title of doctor socially. A really fastidious doctor of philosophy will
not use it professionally, either, and schools and scholarly
institutions where it is assumed that everyone has an advanced degree
use "Mr.," "Mrs.," "Miss," or "Ms."

Many people feel strongly possessive about their scholarly titles,
however, and it is Miss Manners' principle to allow them to call
themselves what they want. She will only offer them a story: Miss
Manners' own dear father, who would never allow himself to be addressed
as doctor, used to say that a Ph.D. was like a nose-you don't make a
fuss about having one because you assume that everyone does; it's only
when you don't have one that it is conspicuous. For sheer snobbery,
doesn't that beat insisting on being called doctor? (p. 73)

[The following question and answer may also be of interest/use]

Dear Miss Manners:

A nephew of mine is a professor in one of the large colleges. When
introducing him, do I say "Mr. Wells" or "Professor Wells"?

Gentle Reader:

The title of professor is used, in America, for exactly this case-when
you want to show off your nephew, but he doesn't have a doctorate. In
Europe, it is a higher title than "doctor." Personally, Miss Manners
prefers "Mr." but, then, her nephew hasn't finished kindergarten.

Yvonne Bruce

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Jan 2000 11:03:26 -0000
Subject: 11.0125 Re: "Doctors"
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0125 Re: "Doctors"

>As another fan of Miss Manners, I can say she maintains that
>Phds do not use their titles socially.

Alas, poor Doctor Johnson ...

Robin Hamilton

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.