The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0723 Monday, 22 October 2007
[1] From: Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 21 Oct 2007 14:53:07 -0400
Subj: RE: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
[2] From: Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 21 Oct 2007 18:47:32 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
[3] From: Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 22 Oct 2007 00:54:29 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
[4] From: Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 22 Oct 2007 11:29:06 +0200
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 21 Oct 2007 14:53:07 -0400
Subject: 18.0713 Problem Shrews
Comment: RE: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
Katharine, we know, is physically abusive towards others, and is so
repeatedly. She hits Hortensio over the head with a lute; she binds her
sister's hands; she strikes Petruchio. Is it wholly unreasonable to
expect her victims to respond in kind? "In kind," of course, involves
the concept of pulling one's punches in equitable fashion--though it is
an open question whether Katharine is truly weaker than some of the men
in the play.
--Charles Weinstein
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 21 Oct 2007 18:47:32 -0400
Subject: 18.0713 Problem Shrews
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
In Mark Lamos' all male production at Yale Rep, such casting revealed
that the play can reveal men's ideas about women. The next summer, the
all female Shrew at the New Globe presumably revealed women's ideas
about men. Either device takes us away from the tired war between the sexes.
Richard Regan
Fairfield University
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 22 Oct 2007 00:54:29 -0700
Subject: 18.0713 Problem Shrews
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
Hardy says, "Melissa [Cook] married a few years ago and is now Melissa
Ralph."
Hmm . . . Melissa Submissa?
Sorry, couldn't resist, beg forgiveness.
The repartee in Shrew is as good as in Much Ado (and it does have the
dirtiest line in the canon), and there's too much good stuff in it to
throw the play out, but the only production I've ever seen that I've
liked at all is the very handsome 1967 Taylor/Burton movie. With her
crockery-breaking and screeching Elizabeth Taylor's Kate did seem not
only to need some behavior modification but to be well worth the
trouble. P's taming efforts, though, do make me cringe.
I've enjoyed this discussion a lot, but I do have one small request:
that Sam Small be let back in the room. The common run of mankind -- and
womankind, too -- really does include all kinds.
Best to all,
Bob Projansky
[Editor's Note: No doors were closed to anyone. Fearing that responses
would be directed to the man rather than to subject at hand, I requested
responses to be private, selfishly hoping to save myself time and to
learn from the past.]
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 22 Oct 2007 11:29:06 +0200
Subject: 18.0713 Problem Shrews
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0713 Problem Shrews
It's instructive to come to this thread fresh from the recent one on
authorial intent. All of these alternative "Shrews" seem to be ways of
escaping what is perceived to be Shakespeare's intent and find ways to
"mean by Shakespeare"...which we assume we must do if we don't want the
play to deliver the message Sam Small takes from it. Luckily there are
so many other meanings latent in it. Whether or not that's by
Shakespeare's design or intention or just by accident or blind
inspiration is the question.
_______________________________________________________________
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.
