2001

Regarding Editor's Decision

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2211  Tuesday, 25 September 2001

[1]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 15:25:04 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 12.2194 Regarding Editor's Decision

[2]     From:   Steven Marx <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 20:21:32 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2194 Regarding Editor's Decision


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 15:25:04 -0400
Subject: Regarding Editor's Decision
Comment:        SHK 12.2194 Regarding Editor's Decision

I think that Professor Cook has the right idea in keeping these pages
clear of the political anger that a discussion of the Sept. 11th events
might generate.  Personally, I would have been happy if the pornography
discussion were left off the list, too, although I recognize that at
least part of it did have some Shakespearean relevance. Frankly, my
approach to topics I don't want to engage in is simply to ignore them
(the delete key! Oh, the wonderful delete key!). Politics, religion,
warfare, leadership, et al, are topics that may be found in the works of
Shakespeare, but they are not the foci of this listserv when they are
NOT references to those works.

Simon Morris is quite right when he writes, "I don't think there is any
shortage of fora in which the events of September 11th can be freely and
fully discussed." Those of us who wish to discuss these events should
seek out a proper forum in which to do so.

Paul E. Doniger

P.S. In answer to Sam Small's questions:  "What ['Who' would be a more
precise word] exactly is a pacifist - and does it have any relevance to
Shakespeare's writing?" 1) I am, and 2) None that I can find, unless
we're discussing _Troilus and Cressida_ or the Henriad.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steven Marx <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 20:21:32 -0700
Subject: 12.2194 Regarding Editor's Decision
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2194 Regarding Editor's Decision

An article I wrote, entitled, "Shakespeare's Pacifism," which appeared
in _Renaissance Quarterly_ Spring 1992, addresses both questions.  It
can be accessed on the web at

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~smarx/Publications/pacifism.html

Steven Marx

_______________________________________________________________
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: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2210  Tuesday, 25 September 2001

[1]     From:   Lucia Anna Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 08:55:22 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet

[2]     From:   David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 14:56:30 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet

[3]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Sep 2001 22:47:40 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Lucia Anna Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 08:55:22 +0100 (BST)
Subject: 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet

> Was no one bothered by the extensive cuts in the
> last scene?

Me. They seemed to deaden the last sentence (which comes rather like a
quotation: Kozintsev's Hamlet quoting Shakespeare's).

Lucia Anna

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 14:56:30 -0400
Subject: 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet

Mary Jane Miller asks if anyone was bothered by the extensive cuts in
the last scene.

I was bothered by the extensive cuts throughout. This is often a
condition of Hamlet productions, of course. Though some cuts can, and
maybe should, be made, the volume of cutting takes its toll, even on
productions as generally good as this movie.

They cut the first scene, for example. It can be argued that what's lost
is made up later. But I miss the sense of mystery and dread that infuses
the second scene when it comes after the first. I miss the history of
Hamlet and Fortinbras, and the background on young Fortinbras, which
establishes a parallel with Hamlet's intention to revenge his father's
death. I miss the atmosphere, the speculation about ghosts, the
introduction of Christian and Roman imagery. So much in this mysterious
play depends on such atmosphere, on hints at the subterranean, and
subconscious, movements of thought and feeling that underlie the action.
There's a thin line between mystery and incoherence. Kozintsev's film
did not become as incoherent as, say, Almereyda's, but by the end I felt
I was watching another anthology of Great Scenes, or even Great Lines
from Hamlet.

Among the cuts is one I haven't seen before. When Claudius after the
play soliloquizes about the problem of repentance, Hamlet is nowhere to
be seen.  His move to revenge, which then must be scanned, and abandoned
because it would send Claudius to heaven, is gone. He simply goes from
the play to his mother's closet.

When so much is cut you may forget that Christianity exists. You lose
the sense of Christianity as a force inhibiting Hamlet's revenge. In
Almereyda's, with Claudius as a corporate chieftain, all sense of
Hamlet's princely duty to the order of the state vanishes too. It's not
much of a factor for Kozintsev either. Hamlet doesn't say much about
delaying. It seems you have to know the play to fill in the gaps.

In the play Hamlet saves the stolen commission and gives it to Horatio,
implicitly to serve later as evidence of Claudius's tyranny. Kozintsev's
Hamlet, shown stealing it on the ship, simply burns it. A small thing,
perhaps, but I think it shows a lack of understanding of the forces at
work in the play, and in Hamlet's mind.

I wonder what people think is going on in Hamlet anyway, but moreso with
productions like this. What's on the screen I generally liked. It's
what's missing that gives me pause.

Best wishes,
David Bishop

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Sep 2001 22:47:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2195 Re: Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet

Mary Jane Miller asks:  "Was no one bothered by the extensive cuts in
the last scene?"

I was bothered by the cuts throughout.  I would be surprised if the film
retained even one-twelfth of the text.  How can anyone regard such an
evisceration as a serious production of Hamlet?  How can anyone maintain
that images, however lovely or evocative, are equivalent to, or an
acceptable substitute for, Shakespeare's words?  Are we to
synecdochically take the part for the whole, inferring the complete text
from the shreds and patches that are left?  Or are we to see this film
merely as a series of beautiful illustrations?  Either way, the play
that Shakespeare wrote is absent.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Moll

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2208  Tuesday, 25 September 2001

[1]     From:   Walter Cannon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 16:22:57 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.2206 Moll

[2]     From:   Gary Allen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:06:11 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2206 Moll

[3]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 18:36:22 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2206 Moll

[4]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 15:22:06 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.2206 Moll

[5]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 13:45:05 -0400
        Subj:   Moll


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Walter Cannon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 16:22:57 -0500
Subject: 12.2206 Moll
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.2206 Moll

The Roaring Girl

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gary Allen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:06:11 EDT
Subject: 12.2206 Moll
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2206 Moll

Mike Jensen writes:

>Will someone please tell
>me the title and author of the other, later play which had Mary Frith as
>a minor character?

If you're not thinking of "The Roaring Girl," could she be referred to
in "Greene's Tu Quoque, or The City Gallant"?  I somehow associate her
with one of those comedies with a brothel scene--and I realize that
leaves the door wide open (city comedy + brothel scene).

Gary

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 18:36:22 -0400
Subject: 12.2206 Moll
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2206 Moll

The main play for the query below is Middleton and Dekker's The Roaring
Girl. I believe Moll Cutpurse also makes a brief appearance in Nathan
Field's Amends for Ladies.

Jack Heller

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 15:22:06 +0100
Subject: 12.2206 Moll
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.2206 Moll

Nathan Field's Amends For Ladies (1612)

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 13:45:05 -0400
Subject:        Moll

This is a quote from Carl Miller, Stages of Desire: Gay Theatre's Hidden
History (Cassell 1996):

"As well as _The Roaring Girl_, first performed in 1610, she is presumed
to be the title figure of the play _Mad Pranks of Merry Moll of the
Bankside_ by John Day in the same year. In 1612 she appears as a
character in Nathan Field's play _Amends for Ladies_, and is herself in
court for real, accused, among other things, of performing on stage."

Dana Shilling

_______________________________________________________________
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: 'The Scottish Play

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2209  Tuesday, 25 September 2001

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 18:27:04 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2196 Re: 'The Scottish Play'

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 11:21:40 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2196 Re: 'The Scottish Play'

[3]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 19:10:29 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2155 Re: 'The Scottish Play'

[4]     From:   Suzanne Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 22:10:34 +0100
        Subj:   The Scottish Play

[5]     From:   Andrew W. White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 21:19:41 -0400
        Subj:   Re: 'The Scottish Play'


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 18:27:04 +0100
Subject: 12.2196 Re: 'The Scottish Play'
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2196 Re: 'The Scottish Play'

There's nothing to support the story that one Hal Berridge died while
playing Lady Macbeth in 1606 (a commonly claimed source of the
superstition), although David Kathman generously shared with this list
his discovery that a Henry Berridge was the right age. However,
superstitious fear of mentioning the play appears to have been active by
1634, when an allusion to it in Brome and Heywood's _The Witches of
Lancashire_ (first printed as _The Late Lancashire Witches_) makes bad
things happen to the speaker. This'll be discussed in my forthcoming
edition of the play in the Globe Quartos series and in Notes and
Queries, probably June 2002.

I'd like to thank those who made suggestions a couple of months ago
about a suitable modern novel from which to crib orthographical
representations of regional dialect. In the event I almost entirely
modernized the speeches in question.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 11:21:40 -0700
Subject: 12.2196 Re: 'The Scottish Play'
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2196 Re: 'The Scottish Play'

Granted, I'm allergic to superstition, but we are in danger of getting
silly here.

Aristotle once wrote that people put too much faith in prophecy.  When
somebody thinks of a friend, then soon sees the friend, they ascribe it
to the supernatural.  But wait, he insisted, how many times do you think
of somebody without seeing them soon after?  Far more often, so it makes
sense to NOT think this is prophecy, but coincidence.

Same holds for the so-called *Macbeth* curse.  The matter of
self-fulfilling prophecies aside, how many accidents are there in
productions of other plays?  A fair share.  But when it comes to
*Macbeth,* some people expect it, and blame it on the curse.  They don't
consider it against the larger background of all kinds of accidents that
happen on stages everywhere.  I'll need to see some statistics that
suggests it happens more with *Macbeth* than with other plays before
I'll believe it.

Achoo!
Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 19:10:29 -0400
Subject: 12.2155 Re: 'The Scottish Play'
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2155 Re: 'The Scottish Play'

Then what do you think about the fact that when I saw it at the Globe,
the stone representing Macbeth's soul (?) missed the bucket and rattled
across the stage?

Clifford

> Not just in the UK.  In Australia, people are extremely superstitious
> regarding 'that Scottish play' in the theatre.  And there is always some
> bizarre ritual if you do say it.  Is this a worldwide thing?
>
> Donna Williams

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Suzanne Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 23 Sep 2001 22:10:34 +0100
Subject:        The Scottish Play

Many so-called superstitions in are in fact early versions of health and
safety policies.  Real flowers are not favoured because an actor might
slip on dropped petals.  Whistling was used in the fly-tower before cue
lights, so a thoughtless tune might call in a piece of scenery.  I've
worked in a large theatre company for 7 years and not noticed that the
Scottish Play is any more dangerous than any other.  Theatres are
hazardous places to work - people are working at high speed, in the
dark, while trying to look as though they are doing something they're
not.  Everyone I know calls it the Scottish Play or Maccers, simply to
avoid offending anyone who might care.  That's a good enough reason.

Suzanne Harris
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew W. White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Sep 2001 21:19:41 -0400
Subject:        Re: 'The Scottish Play'

OK, I'll add a bit to the lore:

My first Scottish Tragedy was cursed mostly by the director, who lacked
the requisite ability to get the cast to speak with one voice, myself
most especially (I was singled out by one critic as the reason why the
show stank).

My second; I foolishly offered to help build the set one night, at a
time when my health was rather delicate.  I had a serious asthma attack
the next day, and had to leave the show.

So far, I felt, the curse was more rooted in simple human stupidity
(such as my own).

THEN. . .

A production of _Measure for Measure_ at the Illinois Rep in
Urbana-Champaign.  A director who repeatedly quoted from that infernal
play, to show he had no fear and was above superstitions of that sort.
The show was entered for consideration for ACTF (For non-Yanks:
American College Theatre Festival, a competition that culminates each
year in a showcase at Washington, D.C.'s Kennedy Center).

On the night when the ACTF adjudicator came for the show, a tornado
touched down in our fair city, at curtain-time.  The show was delayed an
hour and a half, as all of us stewed in our Georgian-era periwigs.  We
didn't finish until midnight, by which time said adjudicator was more
than ready to toss in the towel.  By then, too, we had learned that the
tornado had touched down in a handful of spots around town -- including
our director's house.

Umm, coincidence?

Andy White
Still a bit spooked. . .

The next morning, our we discover that the
_______________________________________________________________
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.

Moll

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2206  Saturday, 22 September 2001

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Sep 2001 16:09:59 -0700
Subject:        Moll

I'm having trouble accessing my alleged brain.  Will someone please tell
me the title and author of the other, later play which had Mary Frith as
a minor character?

Thanks,
Mike Jensen

_______________________________________________________________
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.