Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: March ::
Re: Measure for Measure in Melbourne
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0583  Monday, 27 March 2000.

[1]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 24 Mar 2000 16:46:34 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0559 Re: Measure for Measure in Melbourne

[2]     From:   Tim Richards <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 25 Mar 2000 09:42:35 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0559 Re: Measure for Measure in Melbourne

[3]     From:   Scott Crozier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 27 Mar 2000 08:54:23 +1000
        Subj:   Measure for Measure in Melbourne


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 24 Mar 2000 16:46:34 -0500
Subject: 11.0559 Re: Measure for Measure in Melbourne
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0559 Re: Measure for Measure in Melbourne

If atheism offends you, please close your eyes.

> ...he seems both cowardly and manipulating in abandoning his
responsibilities but playing
> with people's fates and affections to his own benefit.

If Angelo is read as a critique of the Puritan divine, then the Duke is
the God who has left him in charge of his True Church (read the
Reformation English Church).  I wouldn't go around calling him cowardly
and manipulative, but rather say: "he moves in mysterious ways."

Clifford

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tim Richards <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 25 Mar 2000 09:42:35 +1100
Subject: 11.0559 Re: Measure for Measure in Melbourne
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0559 Re: Measure for Measure in Melbourne

Sean Lawrence wrote:

>This sentence seems, though I'm sure that you didn't intend it, to
>naturalize prostitution, and hence naturalize the fact that, as you put
>it in the review, "women's bodies have too often been treated as a
>commodity to be bought, sold or bartered."

What I was trying to say is there are human activities which are
pointless to prohibit because people will indulge in them anyway... the
answer is to swallow your distaste and regulate rather than ban. I do
think prostitution falls under this heading. In my home state, Victoria,
prostitution has been legal for several years which has made it easier
to exclude the elements that evolved from its illegality: links to
organised crime, drug use etc.  You don't have to like the activity to
feel this approach is more realistic than banning it. I thought there
was an echo of this thought in the repugnance of Claudio's sentence in
Measure for Measure.

To Edward Pixley: Thanks for the metatheatrical view of the Duke,
interesting and something I'd not considered. Could the Duke be
Shakespeare in disguise, trying to control his marvelous characters and
watching them run away from him?

Tim Richards.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Crozier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 27 Mar 2000 08:54:23 +1000
Subject:        Measure for Measure in Melbourne

I have recently seen the Melbourne Measure for Measure and was
disappointed.  The set, although rendered with integrity, seemed to be
based on a sledgehammer interpretation that characters were either good
or evil.  Likewise, the characterisations of Isabella, Claudio, and the
Duke, and to a lesser extent, Angelo lacked the subtlety and complexity
that the parts deserve.  The ending with all those "speaking silences"
was a failure.

Regards,
Scott Crozier
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.