The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0061 Monday, 20 February 2006
[1] From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 2006 18:54:12 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
[2] From: John W. Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 2006 17:02:00 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
[3] From: Christine Gordon <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 2006 17:38:19 -0600
Subj: Re: Handsome Richard III
[4] From: Peter Bridgman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 19 Feb 2006 00:54:27 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 2006 18:54:12 -0000
Subject: 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
It's only a small point of detail, but when Stuart Manger imagines the
absurdity of hypothesizing that in The Tempest:
>Ariel doesn't sink the ship in the first three minutes . . .
he's actually describing the play Shakespeare wrote:
"ARIEL Safely in harbour | Is the King's ship" (1.2.228-9)
As the second scene makes clear, the first scene is an illusion. Unlike
Medea, from whom his abjuration-of-powers speech is lifted, Prospero
can't undo disasters and must not destroy things if he wants to use them
later. Thus conversation (as opposed to restoration) is the 'green'
theme of the play.
Gabriel Egan
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John W. Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 2006 17:02:00 -0500
Subject: 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
Donald Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>I thought it was generally accepted that the hunchback and withered
>arm were a total fabrication of Sir Thomas More's concocting (one
>of many).
A contemporary portrait can be interpreted as indicating that his right
shoulder was higher than his left, but English painters of the 1480's
had not, perhaps, quite utterly mastered the art of perspective.
Stuart Manger <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>Can anyone explain why a student or director or a teacher would want
>to encourage anyone to fly so far and fast in the face of almost every
>major tenet of the play's thesis as to promote such a concept?
Indeed, /Shakespeare's/ Richard III is a hunchback with a withered arm,
just as his (offstage) Richard I is a heterosexual, his Hotspur is a
youth, and his Julius Caesar is an indecisive old man.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Christine Gordon <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 2006 17:38:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Handsome Richard III
In a production in 2005 for which I served as dramaturg, our extremely
attractive leading actor, Gary Geiken, transformed himself into Richard
during the course of the opening soliloquy: no add-on parts, just very
vivid, physically feasible adjustment--the "crookback" shoulder, a limp,
etc. I hope to see the current Blackfriars Theatre production when their
tour reaches Iowa in March; their lead, Andrew Gorell, is also very
handsome, but I don't know at this point how he performs the role.
Chris Gordon, Minneapolis
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Bridgman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 19 Feb 2006 00:54:27 -0000
Subject: 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0051 Handsome Richard III?
Don Bloom writes ...
>I thought it was generally accepted that the hunchback and withered
>arm were a total fabrication of Sir Thomas More's concocting.
I thought it was generally accepted that More got the deformity stuff
from his mentor John Morton (the Bishop of Ely in the play) and More
translated Morton's Latin account into English.
Peter Bridgman
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail 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.
|
