2002

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0192  Sunday, 27 January 2002

[1]     From:   Schott Holger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Jan 2002 10:22:25 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Jan 2002 22:56:09 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Schott Holger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 25 Jan 2002 10:22:25 -0500
Subject: 13.0173 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question

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

>It WAS Everett and Jones on the screen, and if my memory serves me
>correctly their interventions were very heavily satirised...as indeed
>they deserved to be.

How heartless! I was an undergraduate at Oxford when the film came out
and remember a minor storm in SCR teacups about the portrayal of Emrys
Jones - especially the fact that they show him pulling up his socks.
Personally, I thought it was at least as funny that Al Pacino had to
have the "sun/son" pun in the opening soliloquy explained to him...

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 25 Jan 2002 22:56:09 -0800
Subject: 13.0173 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question

Martin Steward corrects himself:

>What I meant was that the academics did not appear
>to have much creative input, because the points they made were only
>tangential to the project of putting on a convincing production of the
>play/film. No doubt list-members will disagree.

While you're rewatching the final scene, you might note how the killing
of Richard seems (at least to me) to resemble a boar-hunt, after Barbara
Evett mentions that Richard is increasingly seen as a boar, and his
opponents just have to hunt him.

Speaking of whom, I believe that she mentioned that Richard is ironic,
"but irony is just hypocrisy with style".  I'll be using that line for
some time.

Cheers,
Se 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.