2001

Re: Stratford Ontario's 50th

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1981  Monday, 13 August 2001

[1]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 08:39:10 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1972 Re: Stratford Ontario's 50th

[2]     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 17:13:25 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1961 Re: Stratford Ontario's 50th


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 08:39:10 -0700
Subject: 12.1972 Re: Stratford Ontario's 50th
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1972 Re: Stratford Ontario's 50th

>>I wish I had seen Hutt do the part.  I did see William Hutt play
>>Falstaff in _Merry Wives_ at Stratford, Ontario, in the early
>>80s.  Hutt
>>was, quite simply, the best Falstaff I had ever seen.
>
>It is one of my life's ambitions to get to both Stratfords, but my
>favorite Falstaff to date (and favorite Iago as well) was the late
>Stephen Hemming of the Milwaukee Rep and American Players Theatre in
>Wisconsin.  He did the role in an APT production of Henry IV, part one,
>and was memorable to me for his rascally sweetness, and much-abused
>affection for his "sweet wag", Hal.

I"d like to second this.  I have a costume design on my wall, showing
Hemming as the Prologue/King in Henry V, and well remember his
brilliance and versatility.  Once, in *She Stoops to Conquer*, Hemmings
as Mr. Hardcastle offered all the furniture in the house to Marlowe.
Earlier in the scene, someone had put a table down so that one of the
feet broke off, so Hemmings added. . . "even the broken stuff!"  The
audience howled.  It's nice to know that other have fond memories of
this actor who wasn't with us nearly long enough.

In re William Hutt:  He is simply the best Prospero I have ever seen.

Melissa Aaron

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 17:13:25 -0400
Subject: 12.1961 Re: Stratford Ontario's 50th
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1961 Re: Stratford Ontario's 50th

> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1961  Thursday, 9 August 2001
> Mary Jane Miller writes, "William Hutt was the best Fool I have ever
> seen.  He played him as an aging old school chum and hanger on."
>
> I wish I had seen Hutt do the part.  I did see William Hutt play
> Falstaff in _Merry Wives_ at Stratford, Ontario, in the early 80s.  Hutt
> was, quite simply, the best Falstaff I had ever seen. He slowed down his
> delivery and rendered F's prose rhythmically: the result was that the
> audience could understand every word. And he played Falstaff as man who
> knows that he is mirth, and the source of mirth in others. This Falstaff
> expected to have jokes played on him, and was good-natured about -- and
> rather resigned to -- his inevitable comeuppance.  In short, he was
> delightful.
>
> Anyone for forming a William Hutt fan club?

A very versatile actor. Lead role in Richard II, Chorus in Henry V, did
a Restoration comedy in drag. Did Feste in 12th Night, singing 'Mistress
Mine' when he'd never sung a note before.

TV series as Canada's bibulous and railway building PM.

Switched from the Stratford to the Shaw Festival, then back.

A fan club for him? Possibly, but so many older actors are coming back
for the 50th.

Plummer, for sure. Douglas Campbell, Douglas Rain?

Perhaps a fan club for all those early actors who helped make Stratford
Ontario the institution it now is?

_______________________________________________________________
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: Hamlet Parody

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1980  Monday, 13 August 2001

[1]     From:   Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 10:43:57 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

[2]     From:   Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 11:30:55 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

[3]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 12:02:36 -0400
        Subj:   Re: Hamlet Parody?

[4]     From:   Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 13:25:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

[5]     From:   Harry Teplitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 17:10:58 -0400
        Subj:   Hamlet Parody in DC

[6]     From:   Judi Wilkins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 13 Aug 2001 11:57:36 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

[7]     From:   Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 13 Aug 2001 00:47:26 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1968 Hamlet Parody?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 10:43:57 -0400
Subject: 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

There's also a *very* low budget Dr. Seuss spoof called "Green Eggs and
Hamlet", and the Bob and Doug Mackenzie comedy "Strange Brew" which pits
the SCTV heroes against the evil Claudius in search of the perfect
Elsinore beer.

Also, not quite a parody, there's a b-movie/film noir reworking of
Hamlet called "Strange Illusion" which might be worth looking at.  In
it, the Oedipal relationship between the Hamlet character and his mother
are made explicit.  And in the brilliantly subversive b-horror flick
"Theatre of Blood", death-by-Hamlet is represented in a duel scene.  In
the same vein, Kurosawa did a Japanese film noir version called "The Bad
Sleep Well (Warui yatsu hodo yoku nemuru)"

And probably not worth mentioning is the Troma mockumentary "Shakespeare
In and Out" which features a *very* *very* bad actor who ends up in the
pornography trade while pursuing his dream of performing Hamlet, which
he ultimately does, albeit for a senior citizens' home tour group.

"A Midwinter's Tale (aka In the Bleak Midwinter)", by Kenneth Branagh,
redeems all the failures of the Troma catastrophe, depicting a group of
actors performing the play in the British countryside.  There's also the
Schwartzenegger bit in "Last Action Hero", where the young protagonist
daydreams of a more interesting Hamlet in English class, casting his
favorite action hero in the part.  And also in the brief mention
category, Withnail's uncle spouts a number of Hamletisms in the off-beat
British film "Withnail and I".

All of these titles are currently available on video, which of course
we'd be happy to provide.

Tanya Gough
Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia
www.bardcentral.com

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 11:30:55 -0400
Subject: 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

Noah reminds me that Monty Python also dedicated an entire episode to
Hamlet (number 43, on the Season 4, set 7 box set), and also did a
"Hamlet and Ophelia" sketch, which is conveniently available in the same
box.

The Season 2, set 4 box set also includes "Archaelogy Today:
Shakespeare", "The First Underwater Production of Measure for Measure"
and "The Hospital for Overactors" which features Richard III.

Just to prove that Shakespeare isn't dead, he's just pining for the
fjords.

Tanya Gough
Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia
www.bardcentral.com

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 12:02:36 -0400
Subject:        Re: Hamlet Parody?

Marcia:

Many years ago Maynard Mack gave a lecture at Penn State in which he
quoted from a "work" called (I think) "The Most Lamentable Tragedy and
Death of Omlette and Oatmelia" (!)  I don't remember the author, but
someone on this list probably will.

--Ed Taft

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 13:25:49 -0400
Subject: 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

Surprised no one has mentioned Lee Blessing's "Fortinbras". It's not a
rollicking parody, but I think
it would be easier to compare to "R & G are Dead", for that reason.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Teplitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 17:10:58 -0400
Subject:        Hamlet Parody in DC

Stoppard's "Dogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth" contains a 15 minute Hamlet
followed by an even shorter encore.

And this brings me to a shameless plug -- I am appearing in a production
of this play, opening next week in DC.  For anyone in the area, we open
August 15 and run through September 2.  Details can be found at
http://go.to/longacrelea

Cheers,
Harry Teplitz

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judi Wilkins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 13 Aug 2001 11:57:36 +1000
Subject: 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1970 Re: Hamlet Parody

Try Stoppard's sublime 'Dogg's Hamlet' and 'Cahoot's Macbeth';
interlinking one acters which also make interesting comment on the
essential subversive nature of language and theatre.  When do we ever
say what we really mean and what are the implications for
representational interpretation?  Fascinating stuff.

Cheers,
Judi

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 13 Aug 2001 00:47:26 EDT
Subject: 12.1968 Hamlet Parody?
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1968 Hamlet Parody?

A Night in Elsinore uses the Marx Brothers to deconstruct Hamlet.
Written by Richard Nathan, it may have been noted in SHAKSPER some time
ago. The author's email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Richard Regan
Fairfield University

_______________________________________________________________
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: Funeral Elegy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1978  Monday, 13 August 2001

[1]     From:   Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 10:29:33 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 08:04:49 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy

[3]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 11 Aug 2001 08:57:05
        Subj:   Funerall Elegye

[4]     From:   B. Vickers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 13 Aug 2001 12:17:17 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 10:29:33 EDT
Subject: 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy

>>but it's only a game set out to show that if the
>>Funeral Elegy was written by Shakespeare in the year
>>he wrote the Tempest, the man had so severely fallen
>>off his genius that his work can't be told apart from
>>John Ford's early elegiac verse or the scratchings of
>>a 21st century hack poet.

If this "game" "show"s Shakespeare didn't write the elegy, then similar
games could be used to show that Shakespeare didn't write a great deal
of what Shakespeare definitely did write.  That's why I say it's
pointless.  In truth, it's, at heart, propaganda wrapt in a game's
skin.  And how joyfully the anti-Don-Fosterites dance around it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 08:04:49 -0700
Subject: 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy

Mr. Kennedy's "exercise" fails to address any of the evidence Donald
Foster presents in his book, thus it fails to demonstrate that *The
Funeral Elegy* is not by William Shakespeare.  Perhaps Mr. Kennedy is
not capable of answering Foster's evidence as presented?

I'm not.  I do not think the elegy is Shakespeare's.  It feels wrong,
but I don't usually make that statement in a public forum because my
"feeling" is subjective and may be wrong.  I am not able to answer
Foster's points.  Since I know my limitation, I stay aware of Foster's
reasons and wait to learn something new.

Mr. Kennedy has failed to meaningfully engage Foster.

Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 11 Aug 2001 08:57:05
Subject:        Funerall Elegye

Since there has been a thread about "Funerall Elegye", I thought the
following information might be of your interest.

About a month ago I informed you of Brian Vickers' review of Author
Unknown by Don Foster in the TLS, in which Vickers mentioned very
briefly that "three independent studies" would be published claiming the
"Funerall Elegye" to be the work of John Ford, not Shakespeare. In the
recent issue (10 August) of the TLC Vickers identifies these three
studies:

- Brian Vickers, Counterfeiting Shakespeare: Evidence, Authorship and
Jon Ford's "Funerall Elegye" (CUP, next spring)

- an essay by Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza in Literary and Linguistic
Computing 3:3 (fall 2001)

- an essay by Gilles D. Monsarrat in Review of English Studies 53:210
(May 2002)

Vickers proclaims that "[b]etween them they put the issue dispute". I'm
curious how the later editions of the Bevington, the Norton and the
Riverside will handle the poem. (By the way, my Riverside lacks the
decorated "F" at the beginning of the introduction to the poem (p.
1893).  Did the ghost of Shakespeare remove it because the poem is not
his work?)

Off to the Shakespeare Institute Library,
Takashi Kozuka

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           B. Vickers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 13 Aug 2001 12:17:17 +0200
Subject: 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy

A propos Richard Kennedy's practical criticism exercise, the TLS of 10
August (p. 15) carried the following letter from me:

"Sir, - In my review of Don Foster's 'Author Unknown: On the Trail of
the Anonymous' (July 6), I mentioned that three independent studies will
be published shortly identifying the 'Funerall Elegye' as the work of
John Ford, not Shakespeare. Since some of your readers have requested
details, it may be of general interest to record them. They are: my
book, 'Counterfeiting Shakespeare: Evidence, authorship, and John Ford's
'Funerall Elegye", to be published by Cambridge University Press next
spring; an essay by Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza in 'Literary and
Linguistic Computing', Volume Sixteen, no 3 (autumn 2001); and an essay
by Gilles D. Monsarrat in 'Review of English Studies', Volume
Fifty-three, no 210 (May 2002). Between them they put the issue beyond
dispute."

Brian Vickers

_______________________________________________________________
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 Tragedy of Claudius

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1979  Monday, 13 August 2001

From:           Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 15:43:47 +0100
Subject: 12.1969 Re: The Tragedy of Claudius
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1969 Re: The Tragedy of Claudius

>Pardon me for quibbling, but I do think it important not to get too far
>into this sort of point without checking to make sure everybody is
>meaning the same thing with the words they choose.

In that case, what do you mean by

>they must be cousins?

There is not the slightest bit of evidence for that claim.

Brian Haylett

_______________________________________________________________
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: Who Was Shakespeare?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1977  Monday, 13 August 2001

[1]     From:   Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 09:40:50 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1974 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?

[2]     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Aug 2001 17:09:44 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1963 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 09:40:50 EDT
Subject: 12.1974 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1974 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?

If "The Shakespeare Mystery" is what I'm remembering then it is an
unpleasant affair with Charlton Ogburn Jr. whimpering unconvincingly
about his poor misunderstood ancestor and A.L. Rowse claiming that
geniuses never come from the aristocracy* and then snarling "If you want
to know who wrote Shakespeare, read my books".

*I claim that if 1 percent of the population were aristocracy indeed we
would expect only 1 percent of the geniuses to come from it.  But since
we are only talking about one genius, Rowse's comment was as meaningless
as most of Ogburn's.  I had expected better from Rowse.

- Vick Bennison

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Aug 2001 17:09:44 -0400
Subject: 12.1963 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1963 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?

> Speaking of the topic "Who Was Shakespeare?", a colleague of mine in the
> drama department is seeking a film with either that or a similar title.
> She said she saw it once, and it was a documentary on figuring out the
> figure we call Shakespeare--I gathered from her description it partly
> examined the authorship question, while also delving into biography.
>
> If anyone can help me identify this for her--and where to find it--I'd
> be most appreciative.

There was a 16mm educational film of that sort around in the mid-60's. I
remember showing it to my high school classes but I'm afraid I can't
supply any more details.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.