June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1440 Monday, 11 June 2001 From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 12:53:48 -0400 Subject: 12.1431 Re: Which Potato Comment: Re: SHK 12.1431 Re: Which Potato I wrote: >In the Arden edition of TRO, Bevington does not distinguish between >common and sweet potato (see note on 5.2.56). Ooops! I thought I had pulled Bevington from the shelf, but instead I had pulled Palmer's Arden edition of T&C. Bevington does indeed go for the sweet potato and cites Gordon Williams. (See Bevington's note on 5.2.57-8.) Palmer gives the anecdote regarding the Eigth Army's use of passion-fruit. Sorry for the confusion. Yours, Bill Godshalk _______________________________________________________________ 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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1439 Monday, 11 June 2001 [1] From: Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 11:18:40 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 12.1425 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Names [2] From: Mette M
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1438 Monday, 11 June 2001 [1] From: David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 16:14:09 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness [2] From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 09:32:52 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1424 Re: Colorblind [3] From: Philip Tomposki <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 14:44:30 EDT Subj: Re: Colorblindness [4] From: Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 11:49:34 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 16:14:09 +0100 Subject: 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness Comment: Re: SHK 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness >What input might I get about casting Shylock with a female actor? My >best actor is female and I thought it might add some interesting sub >text. If it is gender-*blind* casting it precisely adds no subtexts at all, indeed prohibits an audience from reading for subtexts. If it is cross-gender casting, then it's very different, and allows for all the subtexts you like. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 09:32:52 -0700 Subject: 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness Comment: Re: SHK 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness My friend Michael Morrison is a believer in colorblind casting, but is aware of the political climate that makes it a no-no to cast white people in colored roles. Michael is Jewish. His wife is African-American. One day, Michael and I were walking around New York City going to second hand bookstores, and we talked about his son Noah. Michael said, "Nobody can tell him he can't play both Othello and Shylock!" Well done, Michael! Mike Jensen [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Philip Tomposki <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 14:44:30 EDT Subject: Re: Colorblindness "What input might I get about casting Shylock with a female actor? My best actor is female and I thought it might add some interesting sub text. I am sure it has been done..anyone seen it done and what's the reaction? Virginia Byrne" The regrettably now defunct Rhode Island Shakespeare Theatre did a version of MoV with a female Shylock about a dozen years ago. If memory serves, the director made no attempt to alter the setting or time. Shylock was played as a female. Except for the necessary language changes (i.e. mother for father, she for he, etc.) no attempt was made to 'feminize' the role. Fortunately, the actress playing Shylock was strong enough in the part so that I quickly forgot she was supposed to be male. I suspect that if the director had tried to make more of the actor's sex it would have been more of a distraction than an asset. All this, of course, begs the question of why you want your strongest actor taking the role of Shylock. If I recall correctly, the original topic of the 'Tragic Hero' discussion, before it veered off into a debate over alleged Hebrew subtexts, dealt with the appropriateness of making Shylock the central character of the play. IMHO this is not what Shakespeare had in mind. (After all, Shylock has, I believe, the shortest role of all the principals.) Portia would seem a better choice. In the TRIST production, Portia was played by a more attractive, younger looking actor who, fortunately, was able to hold her own. For better or worse, visual impact on stage does matter, and if that's your consideration, by all means give it a try. Otherwise, unless you also have a very strong candidate for Portia, you may want to rethink this option. Philip Tomposki [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 11:49:34 -0500 Subject: 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness Comment: Re: SHK 12.1424 Re: Colorblindness My rather predictable reaction to the proposed female Shylock is, "Oh, God, not again." Ms Byrne: think of the sub-text that will be *lost*. On the other hand, if you already conceive of the play as a choice vehicle for your best actor, cast as Shylock, then we are probably so far apart that it doesn't matter. Still, why don't you let the girl do Rosalind or Lady Macbeth or something? Regards, don _______________________________________________________________ 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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1437 Monday, 11 June 2001 [1] From: Lawrence Manley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 10:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 12.1420 Re: Camillo and Paulina [2] From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 12:16:48 -0400 Subj: Re: Camillo and Paulina [3] From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 16:01:28 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1420 Re: Camillo and Paulina [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 10:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 12.1420 Re: Camillo and Paulina Comment: Re: SHK 12.1420 Re: Camillo and Paulina I came into this thread late, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned: doesn't the possible doubling of Camillo with Antigonous add something rather nice to the ending? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 12:16:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Camillo and Paulina Mike Jensen writes: "That done, [Leontes] now has an opportunity to make restitution for depriving Paulina of her husband, and does so." Yes, of course. And he shuts her up, too: "Peace"! But if he took the time to know Camillo's mind, why not take the time to learn Paulina's? He thinks he knows Paulina's mind and how it works. Gee, it seems to me that he made a similar assumption about another woman at the start of the play. Moreover, he wouldn't listen to the woman herself -- or to anyone else's views, either. He shut them all up, except Paulina, who refused to be silenced. Now, he has silenced her, too. This king hasn't learned much, Mike. He has to face the evidence that he as wrong in the past, but he has not changed because of it. I'll agree with you on one point: all this is designed to go right over James's head. But it doesn't have to go over ours. --Ed [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 16:01:28 +0100 Subject: 12.1420 Re: Camillo and Paulina Comment: Re: SHK 12.1420 Re: Camillo and Paulina > At the risk of seeming frivolous next to HIS ideas, I suggest also that > Shakespeare is still trying to balance elements of tragedy and comedy in > the final scene. The stretched language of Act 5 evokes almost a > desperation to pull off this most challenging form of tragicomedy, and > what better way to end it than with another marriage? > > Richard Regan > Fairfield University While appreciating the views of the ending of WT put forward which see it as all-is-redeemed (if I may be allowed a gross over-simplification of part of this thread), I'd respectfully beg to differ. I entirely agree with Richard Regan that it's a tragicomedy: Acts I-III give us Othello-in-brief; Act IV gives us an entire Shakespearean comedy (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy [will] get{s} girl), with, within it, Polixines behaving in the comic realm in a way all-too-analogous to that in which Leontes behaves in the tragic realm. Act V gives us something outside the normal boundaries of comedy and tragedy. When Leontes is confronted with the statue of Hermione, he says: Thou art Hermione; or rather, thou art she In thy not chiding, for she was as tender As infancy and grace. But yet, Paulina, Hermione was not so much wrinkled, nothing So aged as this seems. Time is +not+ redeemed. The sixteen years aren't simply abolished. This is, and is not, Hermione. At the very moment that Perdita is restored to her father, we're reminded of the (irretrievably) dead Mamillius. Antigonous has been devoured by a bear, and won't be back. I can't think of any other play by Shakespeare that ends in quite this fashion, facing us with such a demanding complexity. Robin Hamilton _______________________________________________________________ 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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1436 Monday, 11 June 2001 [1] From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 14:55:32 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters [2] From: Lucia A. Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 22:48:00 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters [3] From: Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 19:41:49 Subj: Re: SHAKSPERean Characters [4] From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 9 Jun 2001 00:05:48 -0400 Subj: Re: SHAKSPERean Characters [5] From: Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 23:16:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 14:55:32 -0400 Subject: 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters Comment: Re: SHK 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters Dream roles? If casting were size, age, gender and talent-blind? Hmmm... Beatrice (for her wit and her winning the man) Rosalind (for the multilayered cross-dressing and b/c somehow she seems so much more fun than Viola) Juliet's nurse (such opportunities to creat character) or Juliet's father (Capulet being by far the most complex character in the play) Oh wow... so many, many others :) Mike... how about Mercutio? <BG> Mari Bonomi [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lucia A. Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 22:48:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters Comment: Re: SHK 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters I like to fancy myself as Cleopatra. Yet I suspect that I am most fit to be Margaret in Richard III (but only on condition that Richard does not look like George Bush....) Lucia A. Setari [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 08 Jun 2001 19:41:49 Subject: Re: SHAKSPERean Characters >George Bush as Richard the Third? I didn't know he was on this listserve... Takashi Kozuka [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 9 Jun 2001 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: Re: SHAKSPERean Characters > >Charles Weinstein wrote: > > > > I played Polonius in a recent production ... > > > >This gave me considerable pause for thought. Now, based on their > >postings here, are there any Shakespearean characters that members might > >be thought to play in real life (so to speak)? And John Briggs wrote: > I'd like to add to this: is there any Shakespearean character > SHAKSPERians would most like NOT to be? Well, I would like TO BE Kent (and to play the part, as well). And NOT TO BE any of several characters from LLL (although I'd like to have PLAYED Armado). My favorites that I have PLAYED are Feste (and Fabian -- remade into one character!) and Banquo -- Although I AM neither of them (I do admit to a certain amount of similarity to the jester). Now it would be a thrill to play Sir Toby Belch (whom I also do NOT want to BE!). This is fun, Paul E. Doniger [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 8 Jun 2001 23:16:20 -0500 Subject: 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters Comment: Re: SHK 12.1421 Re: SHAKSPERean Characters I think I'd like to be Lord Capulet in Romeo & Juliet. I love the scene where he flies into the rage over his wedding plans for Juliet and Paris. Joe Conlon _______________________________________________________________ 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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>