Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: August ::
Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1447  Monday, 7 August 2000.

[1]     From:   Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 28 Jul 2000 05:56:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress

[2]     From:   Judy Lewis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 31 Jul 2000 19:11:55 +1200
        Subj:   Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress

[3]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 03 Aug 2000 09:23:56 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 11.1433 Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 28 Jul 2000 05:56:41 -0500
Subject: 11.1438 Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1438 Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress

>Thus, the problematic "actor"/"actress" labels can be replaced
>with such unwieldy/awkward, but perhaps more accurate and equitable
>phrasings, such as "Suzy is studying in preparation for a career acting
>on stage."

Just because we wish to be accurate, doesn't mean we have to be unwieldy
or awkward.

In this case, "Suzy, strong-willed and talented, loves acting. She
studies theatre." Richard's Lanham's Revising Prose is a good place to
look for stuff like this.

To bring it back to Shakespeare--if we're going to read him closely and
in context, we should be willing to read ourselves the same way. That's
what revising is all about, after all.

Patrick

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judy Lewis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:11:55 +1200
Subject: 11.1438 Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1438 Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress

I was watching an interview with Kim Basinger on TV the other day, and
she referred to herself as an 'actress'.  But then she has won an Oscar
as "Best Supporting Actress', not as 'Best Supporting Actor', or even
'Best Supporting Female Actor' (which means actress anyway).

J Lewis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 03 Aug 2000 09:23:56 -0700
Subject: Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress
Comment:        SHK 11.1433 Re: To be an actor or not to be an actress

>Kevin? Why not consult your own heart and your own common sense?  I
>think that would give you a better answer than any "Hand Book On How To
>Think".

>SAM

I mean this kindly, Sam.  Given the number of people you have
unintentionally offended with this thread and another, I'm not sure
common sense is reliable.

I'm off to Canada for two weeks, so Sam will probably have the last
word.

Mike Jensen
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.