2000

Re: Exploitation of Actors

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1365  Friday, 7 July 2000.

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 2000 14:29:01 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1353 Re: Exploitation of Actors

[2]     From:   Pat Dolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Jul 2000 09:31:22 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1360 Re: Exploitation of Actors

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Jul 2000 10:43:48 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1360 Re: Exploitation of Actors

[4]     From:   Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:50:32 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1338 Re: Exploitation of Actors

[5]     From:   Robert J. Matter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 07 Jul 2000 04:20:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Exploitation of Actors


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 2000 14:29:01 +0100
Subject: 11.1353 Re: Exploitation of Actors
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1353 Re: Exploitation of Actors

Michael Meyers explains the labour market

> It's simple, people who persists in working in an area
> with too much supply get market wages -- nothing more,
> nothing less.   Be they actors or educators, this is not
> exploitation, but the market fairly reacting to the over
> supply of labor.

If the labour market operates "fairly", are women are paid a lot less
than men because there are far more women than men? You should tell the
census office.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 06 Jul 2000 09:31:22 -0500
Subject: 11.1360 Re: Exploitation of Actors
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1360 Re: Exploitation of Actors

> Pat Dolan wrote:
>
>> Union membership is mandatory for all who make commercials, including
>> athletes.

I didn't write it. I passed it on from USA Today. I was unclear about
that. Sorry.

The mandatory union membership was negotiated by the union and employers
under collective bargaining in a country whose legislation can hardly
(in my view) be characterised as friendly toward organised labour.

Given the necessity of patronage for Shakespeare's company and the
hostility of various sorts of legislation to playing, it's hard for me
to see the situation of his company as equivalent to a publicly traded
corporation. It strikes me as more analogous to a professional
partnership, like a law firm or a faculty. If that's the case, the
question of exploitation becomes truly vexed. I know that associates in
law firms feel exploited and lord knows they work long hours, but some
of them start at six figures and have huge upsides to their eventual
earnings. Tenure track assistant professors work like dogs to churn out
text, but any number of people line up for the gig.  Not to mention
adjuncts and other rent-a-profs. (I confess that I'm powerless to
overcome my addiction to teaching. Maybe I should twelve step?) So
what's exploited? Nike points out that while its workers in Indonesia
may be young and ill-paid by our standards, they make more money than
others in their society.

I think the whole discussion leads to a consideration of the nature of
work in sixteenth/seventeenth century England. I can't see "jobs" or
"careers" in the period, if what we mean is the same thing we mean of
today.

Does anyone know precisely the scope of the labour laws specifying the
length of the work day in Elizabethan England? I assume players weren't
covered.

I can't resist passing along a provocation which is visited on me with
some frequency: my wife, member of a union and Ph.D. candidate, thinks
tenure is a much bigger scam.

I honestly don't know.

Patrick.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 06 Jul 2000 10:43:48 -0700
Subject: 11.1360 Re: Exploitation of Actors
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1360 Re: Exploitation of Actors

Pat Dolan writes that

> If you assume that the market has a reality beyond human intervention,
> that it arises out of immutable laws of human nature and social
> organisation, then it's neither fair nor unfair, but we've got to deal
> with it.

As someone who favours this solution, I'd like to point out that your
other solution, to view the market purely as a human creation and tool
is subtly undermined by your metaphor later on:

> Just because we have hammers doesn't mean
> we have to treat everything as a nail. We could make iMacs.

The phenomenology of a tool (as I understand it) rather implies treating
everything at something to be "handled".  Sure, we could make iMacs or,
better, bicycles for the underprivileged, but we'd still be
participating in the logic of materialism, by which things are
fundamentally grasped and handled, and by which philosophy begins with
the power of the agent.

What we should do, I think, is return to the question of what higher
ends we can serve by participation in the material world in the first
place.  What calls us, from outside our acquisitive, powerful selves?
Why are we not just acquisitive little automatons, driven by wants?
Having asked this, we might, without undertaking the literally Utopian
task of overturning the market, find ways to manipulate it to higher
social ends--like by forming a union, for instance, or by building
infrastructures that alter its dynamics, empowering those who are now
crushed by its inhuman logic.

Cheers,
Se


Boscobel MM reviewed in NYTimes

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1364  Friday, 7 July 2000.

From:           Pete Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 2000 05:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Boscobel MM reviewed in NYTimes

Ben Brantley's positive review of the at Boscobel in Garrison, N.Y.
production of Measure for Measure in The New York Times, Thursday 6
July:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/theater/070600measure-theater.html

New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: MADNESS CRITICS

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1362  Thursday, 6 July 2000.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, July 06, 2000
Subject:        New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: MADNESS CRITICS

As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve "Hamlet:  The Madness and the
Critics" (MADNESS CRITICS) from the SHAKSPER fileserver.

To retrieve "Hamlet:  The Madness and the Critics", send a one-line mail
message (without a subject line or quotation marks) to
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., reading "GET MADNESS CRITICS".

To retrieve list of all of the files available on the SHAKSPER
fileserver, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line or
quotation marks) to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., reading "GET SHAKSPER
FILES".

Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the
SHAKSPER file server, please contact the editor at
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> or <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.

************************************************************************
                        Hamlet:  The Madness and the Critics

                                        Introduction

         I taught this play for many years and was always frustrated
by the things my students knew about it before they'd read it.  They
knew too much.  Not only did they already know the main outlines of
the story, they knew all about its notorious Problems.  They knew
that Hamlet keeps putting off his moment of reckoning with the King
because he can't make decisions.  They knew that when he behaves
strangely, he is either mad or pretending to be mad-some thought
he was mostly mad, some that he was mostly faking it.  Why is he
faking it?  To gain time.  I never thought these explanations made
sense but it was not easy to persuade my students of this.  They
thought they made perfect sense-or if not perfect, good enough-and
they didn't understand why I objected to their pre-fabricated
opinions.  I tried everything I could think of to throw them back on
their own resources.  Sometimes my tactics would work, sometimes
they wouldn't.  It was always an uphill struggle.
        The truth is, we are all in the same boat.  We all know, or think
we know, too much.  Virtually no one comes to <Hamlet</i in all
innocence, either as a reader or hearer, knowing nothing but what
the play itself tells her.  That's how it is, nothing can change this
situation.  Yet, though we can't completely disentangle the play from
its history, we do need from time to time to make the effort.  That is
what I have tried to do in this essay.

"Hamlet: The Madness and the Critics"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1363  Thursday, 6 July 2000.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, July 06, 2000
Subject:        "Hamlet:  The Madness and the Critics"

The essay "Hamlet:  The Madness and the Critics" (MADNESS CRITICS) is by
Piers Lewis who welcomes your comments at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Apologies for my initially forgetting to attribute the article to
Professor Lewis.

Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1361  Thursday, 6 July 2000.

From:           Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 5 Jul 2000 23:21:51 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: 11.1328 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.1328 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure

  John Briggs searched, found, shared and asked

>I had been experiencing more than my normal sense of confusion in trying
>to follow the discussion on the word 'presently', so I wandered over to
>a colleague's copy of the "Pocket Oxford Dictionary".  Sure enough,
>there I found:
>
>presently adv. soon, after a short time; US & Sc. at the present time,
>now.
>
>That seems clear enough, except for the question: where does that leave
>Canada?

A non?

Affectionately,
Syd Kasten
Jerusalem

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.