2001

Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0633  Friday, 16 March 2001

[1]     From:   Mari Bonomi <This email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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

Re: Rhetoric Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0632  Friday, 16 March 2001

From:           Graham Bradshaw <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 02:38:23 +0900
Subject: 12.0617 Re: Rhetoric Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0617 Re: Rhetoric Question

>My remaining question: Is there some cant or slang meaning to "making
>time"? Back in the 50's and 60's, "making" was a cant term for "having
>sex with" with an implication of seduction. Is this another rhetorical
>device, wherein "time" is swapped for "girls" or some such? I dislike
>calling it metonymy, but I am shamefully weak on the subject of
>rhetorical terms and don't know another.

Don's nice question reminds me of the observation by the great Marx
(i.e. Groucho, not Karl or Chico, etc.) that "The trouble with happiness
is, it can't buy money." Compare the opening paragraphs of "Mansfield
Park" (satirizing those who marry for money, not love) with that novel's
later version of family life (=death, for Austen) in Portsmouth, after a
marriage for love, not money: just what should count, as the earned, or
unearned, irony? (Or, in SHAKSPERian terms, who is the Merchant of
Venice, the Christian or the Jew?)

The idea, or rather metaphor, of spending, or alternatively wasting,
time is interesting in itself, because the metaphor certainly isn't
trans-cultural and may be distinctively Western: it only makes sense
when time is regarded as a commodity, that can then be spent, or wasted.
Time "is" or "as" money, etc. As Peter de Vries observed, long ago, we
speak of passing time, but it passes without us. Yet we (Westerners)
also speak of "making" time, money, love, war, or "sense". I suspect
that to pursue such metaphorical chain reactions would involve
abandoning older (Jakobson to Lodge) distinctions between metaphor and
metonymy, and listening to what cognitive linguists like Mark Turner
have to say.  But, and this is a real snag for Eng.Litters, any such
effort would involve real, rather than wishful (or "cant or slang")
thinking? Brrr!!

Re: Miramax's Problems Releasing "O"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0630  Friday, 16 March 2001

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 11:11:40 -0500
Subject: 12.0624 Re: Miramax's Problems Releasing "O"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0624 Re: Miramax's Problems Releasing "O"

One could to SLD the Parker Othello with Laurence Fishburne, quite a
hottie, which lots of R rated footage of the O and D in bed.

On the other hand, a number of major porn companies have decided not to
make any interracial films in response to Ashcroft's confirmed
nomination.

So perhaps here is greater sensitivity even in mainstream film studios
to interracial romances.  The romance in Save the Last Dance was awfully
chaste.

Sonogram/Ultrasound of Shakespeare's Tomb?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0631  Friday, 16 March 2001

From:           Lisa Guidarini <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 10:31:33 -0600
Subject:        Sonogram/Ultrasound of Shakespeare's Tomb?

Dear list,

I've been lurking here a few weeks now and am so glad I found this
fantastic and informative list.  I especially thank those who posted on
the Marlowe authorship question (link to the _Guardian_ article), as
that's something I've always found fascinating and worthy of
investigation.

Now, I've a question for the esteemed list at large.  A few years ago I
watched a program on life of Shakespeare on a PBS station, and in this
program it was discussed that a sonogram/ultrasound of Shakespeare's
tomb in Stratford was planned.  I never heard a whisper more on the
subject, and it's been eating at me ever since.  Does anyone know if
such a thing ever did occur, and if so, were there any published
results?

Apologies for the vagueness of the query, as I no longer recall what the
program was.  It was a few years ago that I watched it, perhaps five or
more, and all I can recall of it was the mention of a projected sonogram
of the tomb.  If anyone can help me out with further information I'd
greatly appreciate it!

Thanks to all, in advance.

Lisa Guidarini

The SHAKSPER Website -- Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0629  Friday, 16 March 2001

From:           Andrew W. White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 Mar 2001 10:56:52 -0500
Subject:        The SHAKSPER Website -- Query

For my own information, is this Website accessible to everyone, or only
SHAKSPER subscribers?  I am hoping to refer people to the many good
threads I have seen over the years, and sending them to the site might
be a good thing.

And yes, special thanks to Eric!

Andy White

Answer: Open to everyone.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.