2005

Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1412  Monday, 29 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 07:31:25 -0400 (EDT)
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

[2] 	From: 	Virginia M. Byrne <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 08:27:23 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1402  Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

[3] 	From: 	Cheryl Newton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 11:12:45 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

[4] 	From: 	JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Saturday, 27 Aug 2005 11:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 07:31:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

 >Tom Cruise did not say in a Toronto newspaper interview that he was
 >William Shakespeare in a previous life. He said he was Edward De Vere.
 >
 >Louis W. Thompson
 >
 >[Editor's Note: Everyone knows, of course, that I disapprove of posting
 >about the Man from Essex but in the context of a hoax I will let it go.]

Which would make it only that much more hilarious.

Jim Blackie

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Virginia M. Byrne <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 08:27:23 EDT
Subject: 16.1402  Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1402  Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

I personally think it is absolutely amazing that Tom Cruise knows of 
Shakespeare.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Cheryl Newton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 11:12:45 -0400
Subject: 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

 >If you thought you, or anyone else, might even remotely be a
 >reincarnation of WS or one of his fellows, who would it be? I know this
 >is sort of a trivial question for a group like this, but I thought I'd
 >put it out there.
 >
 >Sandra

<grin>Stephen King, of course!  Prolific author, plenty of action & death,
  various ghosts & otherworldly creatures, suicide, murders, lost loves.

Cheryl

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 27 Aug 2005 11:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1402 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

A similar strange but true report...

"Jessica Simpson Sets Sight on Shakespeare"

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/simpson%20sets%20sight%20on%20shakespeare

Jessica Simpson is desperate to hone her acting skills on the London 
stage - but will consider nothing less than a role in a William 
Shakespeare play.

The 25-year-old beauty, who plays sex-bomb DAISY DUKE in the big screen 
version of THE DUKES OF HAZZARD, now considers herself a seasoned 
actress and is convinced a classic production would finally eradicate 
her dumb blonde image.

Simpson says, "When I arrived in England the first thing I did was go 
straight to the Globe Theatre.

"For me that is the home of acting and writing.

"I have always loved Shakespeare. That's the job I want - anything at 
the Globe."

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Caliban's Island

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1411  Monday, 29 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Carol Morley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 15:32:32 +0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1399 Caliban's Island

[2] 	From: 	David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:40 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1399 Caliban's Island

[3] 	From: 	Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 22:05:14 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1399 Caliban's Island


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Carol Morley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 15:32:32 +0000
Subject: 16.1399 Caliban's Island
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1399 Caliban's Island

Nice idea: I've always been attracted to the idea of setting the play on 
Elba myself...don't know if anyone ever has gone Napoleonic with it, but 
it would be fun to try.

Best,
Carol

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:40 +0100
Subject: 16.1399 Caliban's Island
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1399 Caliban's Island

 >'Of course the Bermudas remain central to The Tempest'.

Sorry, no, they don't. The Bermoothes are mentioned in one comment by 
Ariel as a place from which he was sent to 'fetch dew' during a speech 
which refers to the ships of Alonso's retinue as 'upon the Mediterranean 
float'. The play is clearly set somewhere between Naples and Tunis. 
What may, or may not, remain central to the play are the discourses of 
colonialism which may, or may not, include the Strachey letter and 
Jourdain's 'Discovery of the Barmudas' (1610). Their relevance, however, 
has nothing to do with the one specific reference and is of general import.

David Lindley

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 22:05:14 EDT
Subject: 16.1399 Caliban's Island
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1399 Caliban's Island

Concerning the "possible" identity of the Isle, it the Isle of Man or 
its small "half calf" not sometimes considered as a location which may 
have inspired Shakespeare?

My Thanks to William B. for mentioning Stromboli.

Best to All,
Ira

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1409  Friday, 26 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 17:53:18 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [3]

[2] 	From: 	V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 11:01:43 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[3] 	From: 	John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 14:28:00 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[4] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 08:54:45 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[5] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 09:21:54 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 17:53:18 +0000
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [3]
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [3]

In the quest for Hamlet's father, Jim Blackie is tempted but cannot let 
belief take hold of him. In my view Myriad Man tantalizes us with each 
of the candidates listed. The ambiguity is deliberate. Once again, the 
key clue may be the emphatic synchrony of King Fortinbras' death and 
Prince Hamlet's birth. Shakespeare was of course steeped in mythologic 
lore and the Pythagorean theory of metempsychosis or transmigration of 
souls. Both the Saviour's Nativity and the avenger's fateful birth are 
clear examples.

Regards,
Joe Egert

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 11:01:43 -0400
Subject: 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

"Kenneth Chan writes:

 >Shakespeare's plays are an invaluable gift to humanity because of the
 >profound messages contained in them. It is therefore important that this
 >strife-ridden world hears his messages and acknowledges them.

V. K. Inman responds:

This is the crux of it.  I disagree with the basic premise-that 
Shakespeare was in the business of profound messages, and that the 
'strife-ridden world' needs to hear them.  I have always seen 
Shakespeare as primarily an entertainer.  Profound messages are included 
when they are fundamental to the entertainment.  That is why they are 
not always clear and simple.  Just as long as my point is respected, we 
can just agree to disagree.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 14:28:00 -0400
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >Finally, {WARNING: SPECULATION ALERT} some
 >scholars believe the original King Arthur (the illegtimate
 >Cerdig of Wessex) may have been grandson to the original
 >Hamlet (Amlawdd) in Welsh tradition.

I am, to say the least, unacquainted with any theory to the effect that 
Cerdig was the same person as the man who defeated him at Mt. Badon, and 
the connection between Amlawdd Wledig (who /is/ Arthur's grandfather) 
and Hamlet is controversial.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 08:54:45 +0800
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Stephen Rose writes:

 >"I think [Shakespeare] crafted his plays to entertain, that
 >he was a genius who brought his mind to the entertainment,
 >that his brilliance is so diffuse that it is prodigal. And that he
 >therefore left us with a surfeit. I do not think there are that
 >many authors who say I will try to convey a profound message
 >and craft my play to do so. Maybe Mao had he written plays. I
 >think Shakespeare had a more open mind and thought many
 >things about many things. A moralist he was not."

In the end, what we arbitrarily choose to think of Shakespeare is 
irrelevant, and how we arbitrarily choose to view his plays does not 
change the facts. We have, instead, to look carefully at the actual 
evidence itself. And the evidence from his works clearly shows that 
Shakespeare was no ordinary playwright. He was a uniquely advanced being 
and a highly spiritual one. In his plays, he has left an invaluable gift 
to humanity, a gift meticulously and artistically crafted to guide us to 
a better path.

It is time we recognize Shakespeare for what he has done, and time we 
learn to benefit from the wonderful legacy he has left us. To continue 
to deny the truth about Shakespeare simply by refusing to look at the 
evidence makes a mockery of the priceless gift he has left us. For the 
sake of humanity, we need to acknowledge what his plays mean.

Please look at the evidence. Those interested can go to my previous post 
on the Shaksper Forum at 
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/1716.html>where I outlined why 
the evidence from the text of Hamlet is so compelling. A lot of the 
actual evidence can then be found at my website at 
<http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod>, evidence that has already 
been read by thousands of students.

With best wishes,
Kenneth Chan

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 09:21:54 +0800
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Kevin De Ornellas writes:

 >Kenneth Chan insists: "I am trying to make the important
 >point that Shakespeare's messages are directed squarely
 >at us (including myself), the average person".
 >
 >Could Kenneth Chan define exactly what an "average
 >person" is? What sort of qualities does one need to become
 >"average". How does one qualify to join this club of the
 >"average"? What sort of person is excluded from this
 >"average" status? In a poem addressed to Kingsley Amis'
 >infant daughter, Philip Larkin expresses his hope that the
 >subject will develop into an "ordinary" person with "average"
 >attributes. Like Kenneth Chan, Larkin refers casually to -
 >but fails to define - the precise nature of the "average". ...
 >I don't think that there is any such thing as an "average"
 >response to Shakespeare; indeed, I don't believe that there
 >is any such thing as an "average person".

Of course, there is no such thing as an "average person." As Feste puts 
it, "Words are grown so false, I am loath to prove reason with them." 
Unfortunately, in order to communicate, we have no choice but to use 
words. So, to understand each other, we have to try to catch the meaning 
that is being communicated by looking at the context in which those 
words are being used.

Anyway, my apologies if I had failed to express myself clearly. Kindly 
allow me to try saying what I mean again:

We tend to miss Shakespeare's messages because they are generally of a 
deep spiritual nature. Most of us do not live in accordance with the 
spiritual principles that the messages convey. So we get uncomfortable 
when we hear them. As a result, we tend to resist hearing the messages 
because a true acceptance of them would mean that we have to change our 
perspective in life and even our lifestyles, and we do not wish to change.

Because most of us are affected in this way, I use the term "average." 
Shakespeare's messages are uniquely directed at the vast majority of us. 
This is because the vast majority of us ("the average lot") still need 
to hear his messages, since we still have something to learn from them. 
That is what I mean by stating that Shakespeare directs his messages at 
the "average person."

This differentiates Shakespeare from many other authors whose messages 
and themes do not affect us in this manner - i.e. we do not have to make 
changes in our lives to accept the messages from these other authors. 
Their messages are thus unnecessary for most of us ("the average") 
because we already abide by the principles they propound.

Without the need to make changes in our lives, we have no problem 
recognizing the messages of these other authors. Shakespeare's messages, 
on the other hand, are specifically aimed at getting us to change, so we 
may have problems acknowledging them.

I hope this makes my meaning clearer.

Regards,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod

_______________________________________________________________
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.

DVDs

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1410  Monday, 29 August 2005

From: 		Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 21:15:09 -0400
Subject: 	Hotel on DVD in US / Gilligan's Island "The Producers" also 
out on DVD

Mike Figgis's film, about a group of actors making a film of The Duchess 
of Malfi in Venice, Italy, is now out on DVD in the U.S.  It was release 
din the UK sometime but has been out of print there for the past two 
years.  Like Figgis's Time Code, much of the film shows split screens. 
I taught it last spring and several students wanted to buy, saying it 
was the weirdest film they'd ever seen.

The Gilligan's Island episode involving Hamlet, "The Producers," is also 
out on DVD (third season).

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Comment

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1408  Friday, 26 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 14:33:37 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1388 Comment

[2] 	From: 	Louis W. Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 15:36:09 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1388 Comment

[3] 	From: 	Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 00:05:57 +0300
	Subj: 	Comment


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 14:33:37 -0400
Subject: 16.1388 Comment
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1388 Comment

[Re. Deborah Selden's note: My dear late ex-husband's favorite word was 
floccinaucihilipilification so we named a new puppy "Floxy." She lived 
long and well.]

But this post is really about Hamlet, and Dover Wilson, and an idea 
someone on the list might be interested in "borrowing" and running with.

Negatively inspired by Wilson's title & text, (What Happens in Hamlet) 
and in a serio-jocular educative mood, many years ago I proposed to 
write a newspaper column, "This Week in Hamlet." The idea was to share 
with public audiences, and allow them to enjoy, the huge diversity of 
interpretation, staged and written, re. our hero [or heroes, Hamlet and 
author], and to enlarge awareness of some of the fine points in the 
humanities that most of my colleagues take for granted but most of the 
public is innocent of. [And are still innocent of.] The column would 
also list current Hamlet and other Shakespeare productions, films, etc., 
anything: the central play, both a taking-off point and a "coming back 
to" point for dialogue between literati and newspaper audience. A 
celebration of its depth & light.

I forget what newspaper or syndicate I sent that proposal to, perhaps 
the NYTimes, probably a Washington Post group, but whichever one it was 
important enough that I was quite pleased when the editor sent back a 
personal letter of rejection saying it would be a fine idea for a less 
frequent periodical. I went on to other pursuits but still think it's a 
fine idea, assuming the writer's not grinding axes.

Since then, there's an INDUSTRY built around Ophelia and the Mary Pipher 
book, Reviving Ophelia.

There it is, about half-baked.

Kezia Vanmeter Sproat

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Louis W. Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 15:36:09 EDT
Subject: 16.1388 Comment
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1388 Comment

I don't think "sensitivity" and gender are correlated.

I once heard a Hollywood starlet screaming in the hall at Warner Bros: 
Waddaya mean I'm not sensitive. I'm as DAMNED SENSITIVE as anyone else. 
Do you HEAR THAT??!!

Louis W. Thompson

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 00:05:57 +0300
Subject: 	Comment

To you kind gentlemen and those who were raised properly:

It is not because of being rudely treated by men that would make a woman 
and some men as well shun the forum, although that happens occasionally. 
But rather it is the atmosphere of dueling and wounding that makes one 
wonder how such behavior can help our understanding of William 
Shakespeare's achievement - such a great architect of verbal 
conceptualization. One may falter and make mistakes. It is quite 
permissible to set some one aright or to disagree. But to relish making 
knock out blows for any pretence and often - sometimes even for a wager 
just seems to me like playground brawling.

Florence

_______________________________________________________________
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.