2003

Re: Worker

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0241  Tuesday, 11 February 2003

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 8 Feb 2003 11:15:40 -0000
Subject: 14.0226 Re: Worker
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0226 Re: Worker

Many thanks to everyone who provided the information about the song 'The
Thing-ummy-bob' sung (separately) by Arthur Askey and Gracie Fields.

John W. Kennedy's information about Toshiba's version of the song was
especially useful. In their ad the female worker is Japanese, the
product is a part for Nicam TVs, and the ending changes from "...that
makes the thing that's going to win the war" to "....that makes the
thing that's going to make some more".

Toshiba's worker is considerable less alienated that the original's:
it's a "ticklish job" to make their Thing-ummy-bob "when you find out
was it's for".  (Fields and Askey, of course, think it ticklish "when
you don't know what it's for".)

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: BBC Series

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0240  Tuesday, 11 February 2003

From:           Andrew Cooley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 8 Feb 2003 14:17:10 -0000
Subject: 14.0213 Re: BBC Series
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0213 Re: BBC Series

I agree with previous comments on 'The Winter's Tale' - an almost
completely unwatchable version of my favourite play.

'Macbeth' is completely risable - Nicol Williamson is totally
inappropriate, looks and sounds weak and is just too gangling (to my
taste anyway) to play the lead role - or any other in that particular
play. Jane Lapotaire, whilst quite good in some scenes as Lady M,
completely overdoes the 'Come you spirits...' scene - I overheard two of
my students hypothesising that she had a vibrator hidden somewhere, and
the resulting shuddering and gasping were due it its effects!

Andrew Cooley

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: Copyright Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0238  Tuesday, 11 February 2003

[1]     From:   Harry G. Rusche <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 07 Feb 2003 20:16:05 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0214 Re: Copyright Query

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 07 Feb 2003 22:07:08 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0230 Re: Copyright Query


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry G. Rusche <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 07 Feb 2003 20:16:05 -0500
Subject: 14.0214 Re: Copyright Query
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0214 Re: Copyright Query

A new ruling has come down from the Superior Court circuit in New York
(rarely reversed on appeal) regarding copyright on images.  I will be
willing to scan it and send it to the group if anyone is interested.

Harry Rusche

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 07 Feb 2003 22:07:08 -0500
Subject: 14.0230 Re: Copyright Query
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0230 Re: Copyright Query

Dear Haddon Judson,

If you translate your question into English I will try to answer it.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

Representing Ariel [was BBC Series]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0239  Tuesday, 11 February 2003

[1]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 8 Feb 2003 10:36:16 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Representing Ariel [was BBC Series]

[2]     From:   Peter D. Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 9 Feb 2003 12:24:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0227 Re: BBC Serie


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 8 Feb 2003 10:36:16 GMT0BST
Subject:        Representing Ariel [was BBC Series]

>The  BBC TEMPEST was the least appealing of all the plays I saw.  But
>then, how can Ariel be captured by a mere human?

Mary Todd's position has plenty of precedent. In 1823, in an
introduction to the Oxberry edition of The Tempest, one 'P.P.' wrote:
'We confess ... the very idea of acting such beautiful abstractions,
such impalpable, shadowy conceptions as "The Tempest " and "The
Midsummer Night's Dream" seem to us to be perfectly absurd. How
satisfactorily are our ideas of Prospero, Caliban and Ariel embodied by
a solemn stalking gentleman in a long gown and grey beard, a hairy
man-o'-the-woods, and a robust young lady with a pair of painted gauze
wings stuck to her shoulders?'

The whole point, of course, is that Ariel must be embodied on stage, and
the nature of that embodiment - male or female actor, bulky (Simon
Russell Beale) or slight (Ian Holm, Kananu Kirimi), profoundly affects
the dynamic of the whole play.  [See Christine Dymkowski's introduction
to the Cambridge Shakespeare in Production edition and, immodestly may I
say it, my own 'Tempest at Stratford', due out in March.]

David Lindley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter D. Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 9 Feb 2003 12:24:17 -0500
Subject: 14.0227 Re: BBC Series
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0227 Re: BBC Series

Mary Todd wrote "The  BBC TEMPEST was the least appealing of all the
plays I saw.  But then, how can Ariel be captured by a mere human?"

Ah, silly old Shakespeare (clearly in his dotage by then) for ever
imagining that the character could be performed. If only he'd had the
sense of later generations to realise that the character should never be
put on stage....

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: bardolater

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0237  Tuesday, 11 February 2003

[1]     From:   Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 Feb 2003 20:04:29 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0224 Re: bardolater

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 8 Feb 2003 00:09:08 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0224 Re: bardolater


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 Feb 2003 20:04:29 -0300
Subject: 14.0224 Re: bardolater
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0224 Re: bardolater

Correction: The year the words came into the language was 1911, and the
edition of the OED was, indeed, 1991.

Apologies,
Nora Kreimer

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 8 Feb 2003 00:09:08 -0000
Subject: 14.0224 Re: bardolater
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0224 Re: bardolater

Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes,

>the words BARDOLATRY and BARDOLATER. These words came into the
>language, according to the OED in 1991, used by Bernard Shaw.

Wouldn't Conan Doyle be a better be a better candidate than Shaw for
Posthumous Utterance?

1901.

<g>

Robin

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.