2000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1768  Wednesday, 20 September 2000.

[1]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Sep 2000 20:57:58 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1754 Re: The Power of Words

[2]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Sep 2000 18:52:49 -0700
        Subj:   Fw: SHK 11.1754 Re: The Power of Words


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Sep 2000 20:57:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 11.1754 Re: The Power of Words
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1754 Re: The Power of Words

To repeat:

As a short, gay character actor who specializes in the comic grotesque,
Antony Sher is at a disadvantage in playing Macbeth. He attempts to
overcompensate by exaggerating the commando-gear machismo and the
scowling, pop-eyed villainy.  The results are deformative.

I did not say that a gay actor could never play Macbeth effectively.
(Olivier was allegedly bisexual, and his Macbeth was thought to be the
finest of the 20th century.  Redgrave was certainly bisexual, and his
audio Macbeth is the best I've heard).  But some gay actors certainly
can't.  In my experience, Derek Jacobi is one of them and Antony Sher is
another.

By the way, although my comments on gay actors drew some criticism,
nobody bothered to attack my exactly cognate remarks about short
actors.  Since the issue is one of casting, why are the latter fair
comment and the former not?

Charles Weinstein

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Sep 2000 18:52:49 -0700
Subject: 11.1754 Re: The Power of Words
Comment:        Fw: SHK 11.1754 Re: The Power of Words

Larry Weiss wrote:

> I agree generally with Paul Doniger's observation that the word
> "bigoted" is devalued if used to apply to any fiercely held belief:
>
.....

> But isn't Mr. Doniger himself guilty of a little abasement of the
> language in making his list so long?  Shouldn't "bigot" be applied to
> ethnic or religious bias only; and isn't "snobbery" a better choice for
> a similar sort of preference with respect to economic or social class?

and Terence Hawkes wrote:

> Paul E. Doniger's pious remarks, a perfect example of the new
> sentimental 'liberal' bigotry, can only be deeply wounding to bigots of
> the old school like myself. We await his apologies.

In response to the first, I must say that I have seen a form of
'snobbery' that is far more cruel and hurtful than the word 'snob'
implies; therefore, I apply the word 'bigot' instead. When someone is
treated as a criminal merely because he is poor, or when someone is
treated as "untouchable" merely because of her social position, then the
bias causing the mistreatment can, I believe, be considered bigotry.

In response to Mr. Hawkes: If I have wounded any thin-skinned (or other)
bigots, I have no intention of apologizing! I take pride in my
liberality, though I am hardly being sentimental or "pious" -- only
attempting to keep the discussions civil.

PED

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.