2001

Hamlet in Adult Feature Private Teacher

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2550  Monday, 5 November 2001

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent:           Sunday, November 04, 2001 12:07 AM
Subject:        Hamlet in Adult Feature Private Teacher

In the adult feature Private Teacher (written and directed by Robert
McCallum) in the early 1980s, the teacher, Miss Foxworth, (Kay Parker)
recites Hamlet's entire speech to the players as she seduces her
student, a virgin named Jeremy (Tom Byron). Near the end of the film,
she departs by reciting the Ghost's speech to Hamlet ending with
"remember me" and directs it as Jimmy.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Schoolmaids

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2549  Monday, 5 November 2001

[1]     From:   Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 03 Nov 2001 01:02:09 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2534 Re: Schoolmaids

[2]     From:   Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 05 Nov 2001 12:34:26 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2534 Re: Schoolmaids

[3]     From:   Kathy Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 04 Nov 2001 23:24:46 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2528 Schoolmaids?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 03 Nov 2001 01:02:09 -0500
Subject: 12.2534 Re: Schoolmaids
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2534 Re: Schoolmaids

> From:           Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

>The video
> indicates that the courtship scene is hilarious, and precisely because
> of Toby Cockerell's protruding Adam's Apple
> Do others get the same impression?  That Shakespeare's company may not
> have tried to hide the boy's identity as a boy, even when in a skirt?

I believe that the video may be misleading. I was a "groundling" at that
performance, and although on one level I "knew" Cockerell was male, I
"saw" a high born female whose girlish shyness and high spirits were
restrained and shaped by courtly manners.  For me, Cockerell's excellent
performance "proved" that the appropriate acting style for such roles is
the same as that used by Cockerell when doubling as a page, and by the
wonderful character actor who doubled Dame Quickly--- not "camp".

I have heard, however, that there were some performances when the
audience heckled and whooped and refused to allow a suspension of
disbelief, and Cockerell went "over the top" into flouncings and parody.

> This goes to the core of interpreting any number of comic scenes, IMHO,
> and I'm not sure how many scholars have read them from this perspective,

Geralyn Horton, Newton, Mass. 02460
<http://www.stagepage.org>
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 05 Nov 2001 12:34:26 +1100
Subject: 12.2534 Re: Schoolmaids
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2534 Re: Schoolmaids

>  From:   Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
>
> Do others get the same impression?  That Shakespeare's company may not
> have tried to hide the boy's identity as a boy, even when in a skirt?
> This goes to the core of interpreting any number of comic scenes, IMHO,
> and I'm not sure how many scholars have read them from this perspective,
> if any.

I have written about one aspect of this question in an article entitled
"'Cupid's bow burn'd': or, difference endangered in John Lyly's
Gallathea and Shakespeare's cross-dress comedies".

I argue, partly on the basis of having directed Gallathea, that in those
plays where young female characters are disguised as boys (i.e. where
the boy actors double-cross-dress) there is a double sense of the
*character* as simultaneously boy and girl (with the image of the boy
often predominating).  I refer to AYLI, 2GV, TN and Cym. The article is
published in the "Renaissance in the South" special issue of
Australasian Drama Studies 33, October 1998, pp. 54-64. This may
(unfortunately) be difficult to access for people outside Australasia,
so I could send an electronic copy to anyone who is interested.

All the best,
Adrian Kiernander

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kathy Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 04 Nov 2001 23:24:46 -0400
Subject: 12.2528 Schoolmaids?
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2528 Schoolmaids?

Andy White writes,

>Do others get the same impression?  That Shakespeare's company may not
>have tried to hide the boy's identity as a boy, even when in a skirt?

A few weeks ago in an honours seminar (overseen by the list's Dr.
Luckyj) my class addressed a similar issue when dealing with As You Like
It. It was proposed during the discussion that attention had to be drawn
to the very issue of male actors portraying women during the courting
scenes involving Rosalind and Orlando. Rosalind, played by a male actor,
dresses as a male, Ganymede (to escape into the forest) and engages in a
mock-courtship with Orlando where "Ganymede" becomes "Rosalind." The
result is a boy-actor, portraying a woman, who is dressing as a man,
pretending to be a woman. In this play the gender identity of the actor
would certainly add to the convoluted sexual identity of Rosalind and is
therefore highly significant.  I agree whole-heartedly that
Shakespeare's audiences knew the "girls were boys."

Regards,
~Kathy Crosby

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Shakespeare in Movies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2547  Monday, 5 November 2001

From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 2 Nov 2001 10:17:44 -0600
Subject: 12.2493 Re: Shakespeare in Movies
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2493 Re: Shakespeare in Movies

I haven't seen "The Quiet Man" in a while, although it shows up fairly
frequently on AMC (or TCM), but my recollection of it doesn't make it
very similar to "Shrew." Mary Kate isn't really a shrew but a determined
young woman, who, if she's going to marry, is going to do it the right
(traditional, Irish, country) way. She doesn't have a younger sister or
a father, but an older brother -- and he's the problem, not she. I don't
recall that she got educated to a proper respect for men / husbands
either.

I'm not sure what persuaded Ford that any woman with independence of
mind is necessarily a shrew, so that a story about one is necessarily a
version of "TS." But to me the differences are radical.

Pleasant to recall that romantic classic, though.

don

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Merchant

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2548  Monday, 5 November 2001

From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 03 Nov 2001 16:10:53 -0500
Subject: 12.2536 Re: Merchant
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2536 Re: Merchant

Bruce Young writes,

>For those who claim that play characters have no discernible content, I
>would add that these speculations about Shylock are ones that arise as a
>result of thinking about the words in the text and trying to make sense
>of them.  Of course, there's no definitive "life of Shylock" out there
>to check the speculations against.

Of course literary characters are not real people, but we pretend that
they are.  I suppose we could call it the willing suspension of
disbelief -- this pretense that words on a page share an ontological
category with real people.  I like Kendall Walton's Mimesis as
Make-Believe.  We make believe that Shylock is real in the same sense as
we are real, that he had parents, a childhood, feelings of some sort for
Leah -- but, of course, has no need to go to the bathroom.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Work and Play

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2546  Monday, 5 November 2001

From:           William Sutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 2 Nov 2001 15:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.2521 Re: Work and Play
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2521 Re: Work and Play

ROTFLMAO Terence,

Do let us all know when the next experiment hits the boards so we can
come and 'be' with you guys.

W.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.