The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0687 Friday, 21 July 2006
[1] From: Elliott Stone <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 15:31:55 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0682 Against All-Male Productions
[2] From: David Bishop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 16:07:37 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0682 Against All-Male Productions
[3] From: Paul Hebron <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 17:05:34 -0500
Subj: Against All Male Productions......
[4] From: Kristen McDermott <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 18:43:26 -0400
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0676
[5] From: Charles Weinstein <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 19:21:14 -0400
Subj: Against All-Male Productions
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elliott Stone <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 15:31:55 -0400
Subject: 17.0682 Against All-Male Productions
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0682 Against All-Male Productions
Why is it that the practice of having boy actors take woman's parts
continued on in England long after it had been given up in the rest of
Europe?
I have asked the question on several occasions but have never received a
reasonable answer.
Best,
Elliott H. Stone
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Bishop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 16:07:37 -0400
Subject: 17.0682 Against All-Male Productions
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0682 Against All-Male Productions
The "boy my greatness" moment seems to me an interesting example of
breaking, or bending, the fourth wall. Shakespeare draws attention to
the play as a play with words that are not an aside to the audience but
simultaneously have force within the story. To take this in, the
audience must see the actor both as a boy actor and as Cleopatra, if not
simultaneously then in quick succession, or alternation. It seems to me
that Shakespeare was so sure of the power of his story that he could
bend or even briefly break the wall without feeling any danger of
draining the emotion of the scene. It's quite a trick.
While I generally think, with Charles Weinstein, that it's reasonable to
believe that Shakespeare would have used women if he could have, this
line also supports the interpretation that Cleopatra did not want to be
diminished by being represented on the stage at all, by a boy or a
woman. Still, a boy would seem an even more obviously inadequate
representation of her than an actress. Her mockery draws attention to
her power both as a queen and as a woman.
Best wishes,
David Bishop
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Hebron <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 17:05:34 -0500
Subject: Against All Male Productions......
Despite my best efforts to follow my own advice, that is to stop reading
this particular thread, I feel compelled to offer one more point. All
right, maybe two.
Charles Weinstein comments:
"In which case one must also avoid the standard sentimentalities, viz.,
that Shakespeare was marvelously happy with his acting company,
including the boys who played his women.'Short of a smoking gun like a
handwritten letter,' there is no way of knowing whether Shakespeare
thought those actors were superlative, merely adequate, partly good and
partly bad or wholly inadequate to his conception."
Well, not exactly. We do know from how he handled his affairs both in
London and in Stratford that Shakespeare was an experienced man of
business. We also know that, after Will Kemp left the Lord
Chamberlain's Men, Shakespeare chose in his next two plays (Henry V and
Julius Caesar) not to include a large role for a clown. While we can
never know how directly causal the chain of events, his next play is As
You Like It, and Robert Armin, experienced mimic and clown, is now a
member of the company......and Touchstone makes his appearance.
Is it not possible then to stretch this point to include James Shapiro's
persuasive suggestions in 1599: A Year In The Life Of William
Shakespeare, that the creation of what I would argue is his greatest
female characterization, Rosalind, is a reflection of the playwright's
faith in the abilities of the adolescent male who carried the role, and
therefore the play? Or put another way, that he never would have
written AYLI in the way that he did if he lacked faith in that young man
to bring the character successfully to life. The same pragmatic
businessman who worked around the departure of the popular Kemp by
choosing material to suit the new realities of his company's
circumstances, and who did so brilliantly, would likely have found
another balance to the story of Rosalind and Orlando? Granted this
evidence is circumstantial, but it is evidence none the less.
Charles Weinstein responds to Hardy Cook's comments on the oft quoted
"....some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness" thusly:
"I fail to see how that refutes my interpretation, and I have yet to
hear a plausible different one."
Well, what about this. If your interpretation is based on your view
that this line suggests the personal opinion in some way of Shakespeare,
and that it was in fact his way of making a point about his own feelings
concerning the restrictions of male (versus female) casting, then I
assume that any response, like Hardy's, that refers that same line back
to it's clear function for the character within the life of the play
will fall short of your demands for refutation. All right, those are
the rules of the game.
Is it not possible that this specific comment of Cleopatra's was not, in
fact, a reference to the general practice of female roles being played
by adolescent males, and the consequent aesthetic restrictions that such
a practice might have imposed on Shakespeare, but was rather Shakespeare
making a point about one of the most significant forms of competition he
and the Globe shareholders faced at this time; that is the children's
companies, or the so called "boys' companies". The late 1590's saw a
growth again in the popularity of such companies as the Children of
Paul's, and at the Blackfriars, the Children of the Chapel; they
continued to perform with varying degrees of success throughout the
first decade of James I's reign. Known for their abilities as singers,
and offering wealthier patrons the increased comforts of indoor
performances, would it not be more reasonable to see Cleopatra's comment
as a indirect jibe at these serious competitors, these companies
composed entirely of "boys"?? Is this not at least as reasonable an
explanation, once again albeit outside the life of the play, for this
character's "comment", as it is to draw conclusions about the personal
preferences of Shakespeare himself on the issue of male versus female
actors?
Done now. Thank you for your patience, and best regards to all.
-- Paul Hebron
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kristen McDermott <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 18:43:26 -0400
Subject: 17.0676
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0676
Elizabeth S. Angello writes:
>"And, not incidentally, Burbage did not perform Othello in blackface.
>Does this make his performance, too, a travesty?"
Do we know this for a fact? It has always been my understanding that
when Queen Anna decided to perform in black makeup (and for this we have
direct evidence) in The Masque of Blackness, shortly after Othello
(probably) premiered, that she was intrigued by Burbage's blackface. See
Bernadette Andrea, "Black Skin, The Queen's Masques," ELR 29.2 (1999):
246-81.
Kris McDermott
Central Michigan University
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Weinstein <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 2006 19:21:14 -0400
Subject: Against All-Male Productions
Gender aside, some people think that boys could never have done justice
to characters as complex, imposing and experienced as Lady Macbeth and
Cleopatra. The late Marvin Rosenberg felt this so strongly that he
posited grown men as the original performers. See The Masks of Anthony
and Cleopatra (2006) at 21-25. His position has not found acceptance,
and David Kathman has refuted it convincingly.
Thus, one can reasonably believe that the roles were played by boys, and
that the boys were probably inadequate. Where does that leave
Shakespeare? Perhaps he wrote for himself or the future and not for his
immediate interpreters. Perhaps he resigned himself to boys while
hoping for better things to come. Perhaps he dreamed that the
characters would eventually be played by women--which is, after all, as
he imagined them.
--Charles Weinstein
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
