2003

Re: Troubles of the Marriage-Bed

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1050  Monday, 2 June 2003

[1]     From:   Peter Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 1 Jun 2003 23:53:19 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1030 Troubles of the Marriage-Bed

[2]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 2003 11:45:37 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1030 Troubles of the Marriage-Bed


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 1 Jun 2003 23:53:19 -0400
Subject: 14.1030 Troubles of the Marriage-Bed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1030 Troubles of the Marriage-Bed

Troubles of the marriage bed might be multiple and various. The plural
leaves room for imagination, but inability to find a husband isn't a
trouble of the marriage bed (though keeping one in one might be), and
fear of "the" (singular) physical act is too narrow. The BBC Luciana's
interpretation suggested sexual troubles but her smile kept us guessing
as to what she might think those might be.  In any case, there's an
opportunity here to measure Luciana's patriarchal ideology against her
lack of experience and resistance to acquiring any.  I wonder if
"troubles of the marriage bed" has its own life as a phrase in the
period. There is a commonplace dulce bellum inexpertis ("war is sweet to
those who haven't known it" ?); Luciana's lines are the marital
equivalent.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 2003 11:45:37 GMT0BST
Subject: 14.1030 Troubles of the Marriage-Bed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1030 Troubles of the Marriage-Bed

On 'troubles of the marriage bed' cf. Ben Jonson, the Barriers in
Hymenaei, where Opinion defends the state of virginity in a memorable
critique of the ideals of matrimony.  This is the relevant extract:

Untouched virginity laugh out to see
Freedom in fetters placed, and urged 'gainst thee.
What griefs lie groaning on the nuptial bed?
What dull satiety? In what sheets of lead
Tumble and toss the restless married pair,
Each oft offended with the other's air?
From whence springs all-devouring avarice,
But from the cares which out of wedlock rise?
And where there is in life's best-temp'red fires
An end set in itself to all desires,
A settled quiet, freedom never checked;
How far are married lives from this effect?

Needless to say, Opinion loses the contest, and Truth, her adversary and
supporter of marriage wins.

_______________________________________________________________
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: An Actor on Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1049  Monday, 2 June 2003

From:           Tim Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Jun 2003 20:16:53 +1000
Subject: 14.1034 An Actor on Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1034 An Actor on Hamlet

In the same vein, I interviewed actor Leon Ford a week or so ago about
his performance as Hamlet in the current production by Australia's Bell
Shakespeare Company. He's quite young, and had some interesting things
to say regarding Hamlet's age and his actions; he was unconvinced, for
example, of an Oedipal complex operating between Hamlet and his mother.

However much you agree or disagree with an actor's ideas on playing
Hamlet, it's interesting to hear the end results of the thought process
that they must go through to play the part.

If people are interested in reading the interview, it's at:
http://www.stageleft.com.au/features/readiness.html

Cheers,
Tim Richards

_______________________________________________________________
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: Novel--The Jane Eyre Affair and Film-- Killing

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1047  Monday, 2 June 2003

From:           Sherri Fillingham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 1 Jun 2003 21:11:41 EDT
Subject:        Re: Novel--The Jane Eyre Affair and Film-- Killing Mr. Griffin

>Jasper Forde's novel The Jane Eyre Affair, makes numerous
>references to
>Shakespeare, mostly to the authorship debate.

In addition, the sequel "Lost in a Good Book" bases a good portion of
the plot on the discovery of a manuscript of "Cardenio."

Sherri Fillingham

_______________________________________________________________
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: Actors v Scholars

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1048  Monday, 2 June 2003

[1]     From:   Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 1 Jun 2003 19:48:21 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 2003 09:01:48 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars

[3]     From:   L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 2003 07:01:28 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 1 Jun 2003 19:48:21 EDT
Subject: 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars

Edmund Taft writes:

>what I don't understand is: How can an actor play the
>part of a character who is MORE intelligent than the actor him- or
>herself?  Actors do it: J. Robert Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and Hamlet
>have all been played by actors who, while intelligent, probably were not
>as intelligent as the characters they portrayed.
>
>Are there techniques for playing someone super-smart? I understand
>playing a character who is dumber than the actor, but one who is
>smarter? How is it done?

The same way that actors who aren't murderers play murderers. Primarily
with their imagination. Secondary to that would be to play the
character's intention in every scene, not his intelligence level.  I
might add that it is no easier whatsoever to play a character less
intelligent than oneself. The challenge is in fact exactly the same.

Ted Dykstra

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 2003 09:01:48 +0100
Subject: 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars

"How can an actor play the part of a character who is MORE intelligent
than the actor him- or herself?  Actors do it: J. Robert Oppenheimer,
Edward Teller, and Hamlet have all been played by actors who, while
intelligent, probably were not as intelligent as the characters they
portrayed."

Eh? How on earth can a dramatic character be tested on their
"intelligence"? How am I ever going to ask Hamlet if he knows the
capital of Peru? or the square root of 529? Intelligence is usually
defined as an aptitude for learning. Frozen forever in time, unable to
venture beyond the bounds of the prison of words that defines him,
Hamlet will never learn anything.

m

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 2003 07:01:28 -0500
Subject: 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars

Edmund Taft wrote,

>How can an actor play the
>part of a character who is MORE intelligent than the actor him- or
>herself?... I understand
>playing a character who is dumber than the actor, but one who is
>smarter? How is it done?

I should think it is done because the issues of character are moral
rather than intellectual, and - with certain allowances for differences
of depth of appreciation of the problems faced - the moral problems of
geniuses are available to any reasonably intelligent actor.

L. Swilley

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Pop Culture References

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1046  Monday, 2 June 2003

[1]     From:   Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 1 Jun 2003 16:17:57 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1025 Pop Culture References

[2]     From:   John Zuill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 01 Jun 2003 19:29:38 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1025 Pop Culture References


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 1 Jun 2003 16:17:57 -0700
Subject: 14.1025 Pop Culture References
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1025 Pop Culture References

>>You know, that is an interesting concept: a
>>Shakespeare play with Star
>>Trek as the setting.

Maybe I missed the beginning of this thread, but there have been
sci-fi'd Shakespeare adaptations--eg, Forbidden Planet (1956), with
Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis, and Leslie Nielsen, is based on The
Tempest.

But you could have fooled me when I was 12.

Al Magary

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Zuill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 01 Jun 2003 19:29:38 -0300
Subject: 14.1025 Pop Culture References
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1025 Pop Culture References

>The quotation from Shakespeare is from Twelfth Night ("Some are born
>great . . . "), not R and J, as I mistakenly wrote in my last post.  The
>line is quoted by Lizzie's father (Robert Carradine) and attributed to
>"William Shakespeare," but the play is not named.  Interestingly, in
>this movie about a teenage girl loser who turns out not to be a loser,
>the line is said as if were a taken from a Tony Robbins Positive Power
>videotape or dime store self-help book.

It is always taken that way.  The turn toward irony gets overlooked by
people quoting Shakespeare. I'm pretty sure that when the quotes are
understood in the context of the play in which they appear, the
allusion becomes pointless, so its better this way. Listen to snotty me.

john zuill

_______________________________________________________________
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.