Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: March ::
Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0633  Friday, 16 March 2001

[1]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 13:19:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

[2]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 20:35:16 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

[3]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 20:42:03 -0800
        Subj:   Re: Sexuality & Macbeth

[4]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 00:15:02 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 13:19:46 -0500
Subject: 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

Suffering from the usual brain cell depletion that accompanies aging, I
cannot at the moment recall to mind the principals in a production of
Macbeth that toured the US, playing in New Haven at the Schubert Theatre
probably 15 years ago.  However, the Mac/Lady M relationship was highly
sexualized, and the actor playing Lady Macbeth in her first appearance
was wearing a gown that demonstrated quite visibly that under it was
only her own skin... and the gown was virtually melded into that skin.

She wore her hair quite short, as she always did at that time (and
perhaps still does).  I can see her vividly in my mind's eye embracing
her husband when he returned at the beginning of the play and recollect
the visceral charge created by the lightning of their passion.  What I
cannot remember is her *name*... she is British, and made movies, and
was as I recall a decent Shakespearean, as was her co-star, but nothing
stupendous.

Can anyone help me out here?

Mari Bonomi

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 20:35:16 -0800
Subject: Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        SHK 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

Fran Teague  reminded me of an interesting question that I haven't
thought about in a long time when she wrote,

>To my mind, the most interesting aspect of Julius Caesar and sexuality
>is the material that Shakespeare chooses to omit. In particular, he
>makes no use of Plutarch's comment in the Life of Brutus, IV, that
>Caesar believed Brutus to be his bastard. I'm also struck by the
>omission of the information that Calpurnia is Caesar's fourth wife,
>following a fairly scandalous divorce from number three. One could write
>a fairly lively melodrama ... about domestic problems and Caesar's
>yearning
>for an heir, yet Shakespeare omits all of that aspect.

I wonder if it is possible that Shakespeare ignored all this
dramatically rich material because his play is not about Julius Caesar
at all. It may be called _The Tragedy of Julius Caesar_, but it is
really the tragedy of Marcus Brutus. Although the figure of Julius
Caesar does dominate the plot, Brutus is clearly the tragic hero, noble
of character, complete with a 'tragic flaw' (his own arrogant purity,
both as a stoic and as a man of virtue) which causes his downfall. I
have often suspected that Shakespeare gave the play this title because
it would attract a larger audience than _The Tragedy of Marcus Brutus,
Senator of Rome_ .

What do you all think?

Paul E. Doniger

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 20:42:03 -0800
Subject:        Re: Sexuality & Macbeth

David Evett wrote about an interesting paradox in Polanski's _Macbeth_.
The Hugh Hefner connection may or may not be the reason for it, but he's
right that for all the nudity in the film, there is little sexuality in
it.  Perhaps the dull performance of Jon Finch is also partly
responsible. I remember marveling at how interesting Francesca Annis
was, and how pleasant to look at, but for sheer sexual drive and power,
no Lady Macbeth I've seen can come close to Jane Lapotaire. If you
haven't seen the BBC _Macbeth_, you're missing something remarkable
(despite its many flaws). Is anyone else out there disappointed that
this incredible actress has been filmed so rarely?

Paul E. Doniger

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 00:15:02 -0500
Subject: 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0618 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

Fran Teague is:

>struck by the
>omission of the information that Calpurnia is Caesar's fourth wife,
>following a fairly scandalous divorce from number three.

If the mere depiction of the deposition of Richard II was so remarked,
wouldn't inclusion of this fact similarly have left the play open to
suspicion of an anti-Tudor polemic?

Clifford Stetner
CUNY
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.html
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.