2002

Re: Rushes on the Indoor Stage

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0262  Wednesday, 30 January 2002

[1]     From:   Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 23:30:28 +0000
        Subj:   SHK 13.0239 Rushes on the Indoor Stage

[2]     From:   Rita Lamb <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 00:02:44 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0239 Rushes on the Indoor Stage


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 23:30:28 +0000
Subject: Rushes on the Indoor Stage
Comment:        SHK 13.0239 Rushes on the Indoor Stage

See 'Duchess of Malfi' Act V: Cardinal talks of fights in the rushes. My
text is in class - very sorry, can't give you the exact reference.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rita Lamb <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 00:02:44 -0000
Subject: 13.0239 Rushes on the Indoor Stage
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0239 Rushes on the Indoor Stage

There's a reference to rushes in Nashe's 'Summer's Last Will and
Testament'.  The play was registered for publication on 28 October 1600,
but internal evidence suggests it was privately staged in the Great Hall
of Croydon Palace before Archbishop Whitgift and his household in early
October 1592.

In it there's a character called Back-winter, who has a number of
unbalanced and furious speeches.  After he leaves, another character
speaks directly to the prompter:

'...you might haue writ in the margent of your play-booke, Let there be
a fewe rushes laide in the place where Back-winter shall tumble, for
feare of raying his cloathes: or set downe, Enter Back-winter, with his
boy bringing a brush after him, to take off the dust if need require.
But you will ne're haue any ward-robe wit while you liue.'

So apparently the actor playing Back-winter threw himself down and raved
on the floor during his scene.  As he plays the son of a royal
counsellor, perhaps his costume was rich and expensive, and should have
been protected from contact with the floor?

Earlier in the play a hobby-horse dancer is told 'You, friend with the
Hobby-horse, goe not too fast, for feare of wearing out my Lords
tyle-stones with your hob-nayles'.  Taken with the first comment this
perhaps suggests there were no rushes laid for this performance.

RLamb

_______________________________________________________________
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: Campbell and Quinn and so on

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0261  Wednesday, 30 January 2002

[1]     From:   Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 21:35:01 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0234 Re: Campbell and Quinn

[2]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 22:58:51 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: Campbell and Quinn: The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 21:35:01 +0000
Subject: 13.0234 Re: Campbell and Quinn
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0234 Re: Campbell and Quinn

>Does anyone have a copy of THE COMPANION TO THE PLAYHOUSE with its great
>description of Garrick's acting?  Published in London in 1764.
>
>Harry Hill

   We have the 1812 edition in our library here.  Why do you ask?

                                Kevin De Ornellas
                                    Queen's University, Belfast

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 22:58:51 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Re: Campbell and Quinn: The Reader's Encyclopedia of
Shakespeare

Tom Dale Keever <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> says,

> A couple of other recent collections of background
> articles deserve attention.
>
> "A New History of Early Modern Drama," edited by
> James D. Cox and David Scott Kastan, with an
> introduction by Stephen Greenblatt (New York:
> Columbia U.P., 1997)...
>
> "A Companion to Shakespeare," edited by David Scott
> Kastan (Oxford, UK and Malden, MA: Blackwell,
> 1999)...

And the NEW Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare (2001), which looks
significantly different from the 1934 edition and the other two
Companions mentioned on SHAKSPER so far. I also like the Bedford
Companion to Shakespeare (1996; 2nd edn, 2001), which I use in my
Shakespeare seminars. (Speaking of teaching, why is the new job at
Reading University starting from April?  I wanted to apply, but it's
starting too early for me -- I need a job from September!) Are we going
to have another companion (eg, the SHAKSPER Companion to Shakespeare)?
:-)

Best wishes,
Takashi Kozuka

_______________________________________________________________
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: Critical Principles

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0259  Wednesday, 30 January 2002

From:           Jimmy Jung <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 16:17:43 -0500
Subject: 13.0237 Re: Critical Principles
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.0237 Re: Critical Principles

Normally I avoid things like this when the get this serious, but some of
this conversation caught my eye.

I didn't know Ian McKellen was gay, but if I did, I'm not sure it is
entirely irrelevant.  There a zillion examples of gay actors straight
performances and vice versa and it is in the performance where they will
fail or succeed.  But there are things outside the performance that
circumstances may demand an actor work harder to overcome.  The fact
that my wife considers Tom Cruise one of the three most attractive men
alive makes it very difficult for me to find him believable as ugly guy,
regardless of prosthetics in Vanilla Sky.  (Me and one of those guys
from thirtysomething are the other two).  Ellen DeGeneres, is very
funny, but not a great actress, and I found her unconvincing as the
straight-Ellen before she came out on her old show.  On the other hand,
The Shakespeare Theater, here in Washington, cast a woman as both
Falstaff and as Jonson's Volpone - quite a hurdle, but accomplished
quite deftly.  OJ Simpson's performance didn't change, but the "Naked
Gun" movies just aren't as funny anymore.

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: "He's very clean; isn't he."

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0260  Wednesday, 30 January 2002

From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 15:22:16 -0600
Subject: 13.0235 Re: "He's very clean; isn't he."
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0235 Re: "He's very clean; isn't he."

Re Brambell:

1) Us Yanks and others may not know the open secret about Wilfrid's
predilections. Don't mean to be nosy, but as it got brought up, I can't
help feeling curious.

2) GE's short quote had me convulsed. I could hear Old Steptoe say it
even after all these years. Is there more of his precis of Richard III?

3) To get back to accents. GE characterizes Steptoe's as West London
working class. How would it differ from Cockney? Or is it a sub-accent
of that? Where is "West London"? (I gather it's some farther west than
Mayfair.) How many working class accents are there? Do the toffs
(torfs?) really say "orf"?

Cheers,
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: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0258  Wednesday, 30 January 2002

[Editor's Note: This thread has passed its useful life. If anyone wishes
to continue with it, please do so off-list. -Hardy]

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 12:58:34 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:52:15 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

[3]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:58:15 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

[4]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 19:18:00 -0500
        Subj:   Postmodern Shakespearean Performance


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 12:58:34 -0800
Subject: 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

I asked:

> >I'm curious.  Does anybody besides, possibly, Mr. Weinstein, consider
> >the above to be examples of reasoned argument?

R. A. Cantrell replied:

>Yes

How?  Please enlighten me?

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

Ok, everybody stand up.

All standing?  Good.  Now, remain standing if you have never done
something you later regretted deeply, never done something you know now
was wrong, never done something you'd give practically anything not to
have done.

Anyone still standing?  Right -- there, the guy in the corner, you with
the holes in your hands...oh, never mind.  Anyone ELSE?

I didn't think so.

I think it took a lot of guts to make the admission that Mike Jensen did
yesterday.  I'm not sure I would have had it in me to do what he did.
Had it been me, I would have been sorely tempted to just go into "lurk"
mode for a while, rather than admit a serious, embarrassing mistake and
apologize for it in a forum which includes many people whom I know and
whose work I respect.  That would have been the easy way out, but Mike
did not take it.

Well done, MJ.

Karen E. Peterson
University of Wales, Lampeter

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:58:15 -0800
Subject: 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0238 Re: Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

I begin with two words nobody wants to use:  My cardiologist tells me
that if I have a sudden increase in chest pain when reading or
responding to messages from Mr. Weinstein, then I should stop reading
and responding to them.

This bothers me because Mr. Weinstein succeeded in getting the emphasis
off his own behavior, and that has not been redressed.  My good wife,
however, reminds me that I have responsibilities closer to home, and I
should follow my doctor's orders.  I long ago came to realize that she
is always right.

I am pleased that others are debating one of Mr. Weinstein's tactics on
another thread, though I fear nothing will come of it.

Mike Jensen

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 19:18:00 -0500
Subject:        Postmodern Shakespearean Performance

Mr. Jensen here produces his whimsical excuse about the "click-send"
button for the first time.  I reserve judgment as to its veracity.  He
did send me an "apology" for his thuggish behavior in which he stated:
"I descended to your level."  I found that to be back-handed, craven and
contemptible.  Finally, and tiresomely, he has been sending me insulting
e-mails this week while stating that he will not read my replies.  In
the hope that he will read this one, let me tell him unequivocally that
he is never to write to me again.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm looking forward to the week
off.

--Charles Weinstein

_______________________________________________________________
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.