March
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0209 Friday, 24 March 2006 From: Curt L. Tofteland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 2006 12:25:58 EST Subject: Shakespeare Behind Bars Documentary Opens to RAVE REVIEWS Gentles, We are very happy to announce that Philomath Film's award winning documentary SHAKESPEARE BEHIND BARS was released in commercial theaters this month! The documentary premiered in January 2005 at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival and has gone on to 30 film festivals around the world winning 10 film awards. The premiere engagement was at The Quad Cinema in New York City on March 10. "Remarkable. Marvel at the transformative power of art. Find freedom in performance and release in words." --Jeannette Catsoulis, New York Times "SBB is fascinating. It's a unique look at the least likely sources for talent and presents a one-of-a-kind look at a world most us never have to deal with." --Jeffrey Lyons, NBC's 'Reel Talk.' "Uplifting. Gives hope that forgiveness and redemption are possible." --Jami Bernard, NY Daily News "Profoundly moving. Any minute of this low-budget, digitally shot documentary packs more punch than the entirety of most triumph-of-the-human-spirit blockbusters." --Jan Stuart, Newsday "**** Extraordinary. Thrilling to watch." --Ken Fox, TV Guide.com "Powerful. Ingenious." --Matt Singer, Village Voice "Moving and enlightening, Shakespeare behind Bars is a powerful, personal, transforming film. As we witness the discovery of language, shared experience, and passion for acting, redeeming and reclaiming the lives of Kentucky inmates, we find ourselves awakened to what is vulnerable and human in us all. These unlikely thespians are a reminder that, despite being failed by their families, the system or their own poor choices, these guys are a lively, likeable bunch, who we root for, and want to see succeed, because with hope, purpose and a sense of community, they can." --Carol Crittenden, ABC Radio Additional cities currently booked are listed below, and the list is being updated frequently at: www.internationalfilmcircuit.com/shakespeare Click Here: Check out "International Film Circuit, Inc. | distributor of fine films" The film will be released in the US on DVD this July by Shout! Factory (www.shoutfactory.com) with an extra special feature -- commentary by the inmates! Philomath Films recently returned to Kentucky and sat with some of the film's subjects as they revealed new information and riffed on their reactions to the film. Blessings, Curt L. Tofteland Founder & Artistic Director Shakespeare Behind Bars Producing Artistic Director Kentucky Shakespeare Festival The Historic Landward House 1387 South Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40208 502.637.4933 (office) 502.387.6412 (cell) 502.637.9261 (fax)This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. www.kyshakes.org _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0208 Friday, 24 March 2006 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, March 24, 2006 Subject: SPOOF!! Will You Be My Valentine? SPOOF!! Dear SHAKSPEReans, Many of you have been receiving a SPOOFED message with the Subject line that reads "Will You Be My Valentine?" The message itself has various sized hearts on a pink background with a "Click to attachment to load a picture" above a box and followed by what appears to be a poem. Let me reassure you that I did not send you this message nor has the new SHAKSPER server or listserv software been compromised in any way. The message is a result of our archives being "harvested" by a spoofer's robot. Eric writes me that "Obfuscating email addresses is the only way to stop spoofers, but it is a major task" and "I'm not sure what we can do about this. The best way would be to restrict access to the archive. That would keep robots from harvesting. Otherwise, we'd have to figure out a way to obfuscate all of the addresses, and there is no guarantee that someone won't figure out how to get around whatever method we employ. A changeable encryption key used to obfuscate addresses via javascript would work well, but that requires major programming and web re-design. There are easier methods to deploy, but most robots can already defeat them." Eric and I will continue to think about what we may do to stop future incidents, but unfortunately spoofing is one of the by-products of using the Internet. As for general operating procedures, I would never send members anything that is not list related; so if something you received appears suspicious, delete it immediately without reading or opening it. Especially stay away from any attachments to any message that is not from a person you trust in a message you are expecting. All digests from me will have the From line that reads "Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >." Occasionally, you might receive a message from listserv as a result of a command I issued in your behalf; on those occasions, the From line will read "SHAKSPER LISTSERV Server (14.4)This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >." Furthermore, listserv only sends plain text files; so if you receive a message purportedly from me or listserv that is formatted in HTML, delete it immediately. This valentine spoofed message has "Editor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >" in the From line rather than "Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >": a give away that something in not right. Hardy M. Cook Editor _______________________________________________________________ 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://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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0207 Thursday, 23 March 2006 [1] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 2006 15:54:25 +0000 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0189 Measure for Measure and a Puzzle [2] From: Kristen McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 12:38:38 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0201 Measure for Measure and Isabella [3] From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 2006 12:02:56 -0500 Subj: Measure for Measure and Isabella [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 2006 15:54:25 +0000 Subject: 17.0189 Measure for Measure and a Puzzle Comment: RE: SHK 17.0189 Measure for Measure and a Puzzle On whether Isabella's surrender to Angelo would constitute rape or prostitution, Don Bloom writes: >"You just >have to know what you're setting up as moral premises in order to >make your argument." Indeed. Can someone familiar with the theological currents of Shakespeare's day briefly summarize the official Catholic and Anglican Church positions on prostitution and the relative culpability of whore, pimp, and john in said transaction? Should Lucio be compelled to marry the prostitute whose child he may have sired? Is Claudio guilty for urging his novitiate sister to "give it up" to Angelo in exchange for his life. Is Isabella guilty for refusing the exchange (in veneration of St. Clare) though willing to offer up her life instead? Does Marianna's loss of dowry invalidate Angelo's covenant with her? Not quite analogous is Augustine's case (with his implicit pardon) in DE SERMONE DOMINI... of the wife giving it up to a rich man for gold to save her husband (with her husband's consent). What are the formal moral premises in M4M? I can't help but see the Duke's donning the friar's habit as reflecting the Henrician assumption (usurpation, to Catholic eyes) of spiritual or sacral authority by the Tudor-Stuart state. King James in his writing carries divine right ideology to new heights. The ruler is seen as natural father, shepherd, and minister to his people--the deputy on earth of Christ himself--now responsible for both his subjects' souls and bodies. He is prior to and above the law (Note the Duke's charge to Angelo not merely to enforce but "qualify" the law). In Erasmian terms, he becomes abbot of the "monastic state." Nor does James shrink from advocating and himself engaging in secrecy and deceit for so-called higher ends--hence the DOLUS BONUS or "good trick." At play's end, Isabella, after passing the Duke's test of mercy to Angelo, is now worthy to become bride to Christ's new avatar-- displacing the clerical Catholic locus of sacrality. (See Debora Shugar's POLITICAL THEOLOGIES... for the full argument.) On the other hand (there's always an other hand with WS), Lucio's slanderous lies regarding the "Duke of dark corners" may bodyguard the truth, as Arnie Perlstein and Ed Taft suggest. Can we be sure Lucio has sired the prostitute's child? Is the Machiavellian Duke once more evading his own responsibility and selecting yet another Angelo in Lucio to clean up his (the Duke's) own mess? Yet one more substitute? Joe Egert [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristen McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 12:38:38 -0500 Subject: 17.0201 Measure for Measure and Isabella Comment: RE: SHK 17.0201 Measure for Measure and Isabella >"(1) Why is the capacity to feel horrified at being raped to be seen as >inherently or hierarchically gendered? Men can be raped as readily and >as damagingly as women" Frank Whigham makes a very important point about the mistake of assuming that only females can be sexually vulnerable. We should also remember that the original Isabella was, of course, played by a boy/young man. Lots of good studies in the last ten years have considered the ways our assumptions about how early modern sexuality is staged are complicated by the eroticized presence of the "boy" actors, who might well have presented opportunities for male audience members to worry about both male seductiveness ("a nest of boyes able to ravish a man," Middleton on Blackfriars) and male rape (c.f. one of the boys in Jonson's Cynthia's Revels, who says, "What, will you ravish mee?. . . I'lde crie, a rape, but that you are children" [99, 102-3].) Kris McDermott Central Michigan University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 2006 12:02:56 -0500 Subject: Measure for Measure and Isabella Commenting on the kinky side of Isabella, Frank Whigham asks, "Why, after all, seek to be tied up really nice and tight? As a famous article on magic girdles by Al Friedman and Richard Osberg suggests, one might imagine Shakespeare asking (as with Goneril and Regan) whether such bindings are meant to lock things out or lock things in." Or maybe neither. Despite her passion and fiery rhetoric, Isabella may secretly wish to lose control, to hand it over to someone else. Near the beginning of the play, she seems to want to be controlled by the sisterhood, which, in turn, is dedicated to the ultimate father-figure, God. At the end of the play, the Duke puts her in a predicament that eerily mirrors what she at first wanted. By the end of Act 5, the Duke has presented himself as a seemingly all-powerful demi-God who has contrived to save the day for everyone. Moreover, he has put Isabella in a "tight" corner: how can she say "No" in public, in front of an admiring crowd, to the father-figure who has rescued her brother? And who seems to have master-minded a "happy ending" for all? In fact, her marriage to the Duke seems part and parcel of this "happy" ending. It strikes me that one major difference between Angelo and the Duke is that the former is quite honest and open about his plans and feelings. The Duke, on the other hand, hides both from us - and perhaps even from himself as well. So I think the Duke is fully capable of having seen Isabella's passion for restraint and used it, along with her longing for a father figure, to get what he wants: her. Ed Taft _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0206 Thursday, 23 March 2006 From: Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 09:42:49 -0800 Subject: Genre and Measure for Measure I think the question of M4M's genre is simply uninteresting. I find genre to be a rather blunt and ineffective tool for illuminating Shakespeare's plays--especially the late and "problem" plays. (Insert obligatory Polonius genre quote here.) The oceans of ink that have been spent on genre controversies and definitions are largely wasted, IMHO--much of it consists of inward-looking contentions that serve the contenders rather than the texts or their readers/auditors. (More colorful metaphors are close to hand.) Genre tags can serve as useful shorthand if they're used in a very generic way (i.e. "the late tragedies"). But a much more interesting question (probably beyond the capabilities of most undergraduates, writing at whatever length) would be, "How does Shakespeare play on dramatic/theatrical/literary conventions (from any genre[s]) to generate the effects in M4M." He does that *in spades* in M4M, and achieves much of the play's effect through that play. Steve _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0205 Thursday, 23 March 2006 [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 12:12:24 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0198 "hindered me a million" [2] From: Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 14:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subj: "hindered me a million" [3] From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, March 23, 2006 Subj: For the Record [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 12:12:24 -0500 Subject: 17.0198 "hindered me a million" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0198 "hindered me a million" Why do we need to take this literally? Both the temporal and monetary interpretations are hyperbolic -- there is no way Antonio could have hindered 500,000 transactions or deprived Shylock of 500,000 ducats given the scarcity of ducats implied in the play. Shylock is saying that Antonio is "a royal pain in the arse who has cost me a shitload of money." [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 14:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: "hindered me a million" Dear forum, Excuse the word transfer that probably the automatic speller inserted when I was not looking. I meant to say ...having achieved an understanding. . . . And not the word archived. I take this opportunity to examine the passage. First there is the ironic but true "to bait a fish - withal" or more correctly "with all". Shylock is telling us that Antonio is the lure by which he may gain the attention of the acquisitive "fish" - (Christian imagery) -the eminent person who presides over the court of Venice. Then he returns to his words of confrontation that are needed to set up the ploy. "It will feed my revenge" However since revenge is neither what motivates Shylock nor what is natural to him he grabs at a rationalization for this would be "revenge". He talks about the injuries that he has suffered - which are very little on account of Antonio and very much the result of the inquisition's policy to pauperize the Jews. Indeed besides being put into a Ghetto they were to be limited to selling used clothes. Despite his distain ordinarily Antonio would hardly be noticed. The name of the game was survival. At the same time as I have shown you, Shakespeare includes Hebrew transliterations for those who may benefit from them. It is his final sanction for the true identity and purpose of the protagonist. Whenever there is a contradiction of this kind I have learned to look for the Hebrew. It will be there. Never the less even before adversaries - Salario and Solanio, Shylock cannot help being mentor and moralist when he says his famous words "Hath Not a Jew eyes?" Etc. But then again he may not allow himself to stray from his avowed purpose. He returns to his incitement. "Revenge" he says will be learned from (the majority culture) the Christians. (It is not the practice of a persecuted minority.) Florence Amit [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, March 23, 2006 Subject: For the Record Dear SHAKSPEReans, When SHAKSPER came back online after the server crash, I announced that I was taking a new editorial stance: "I welcome the diversity of members, but I want to regain the academic focus of the early days of the list. The only way that I can see that this is possible is for me to become active as moderator and only post messages that I believe are of interest to the academic community. In posting messages only of interest to the academic community, I am not proposing to restrict the membership of SHAKSPER or to eliminate significant questions and comments from actors, directors, or any member of SHAKSPER. The source of the post is not the issue; the issue will be its relevance to the broad scope of academic interests in Shakespeare studies." I quickly added that "I know that there are some who feel that the list has had little genuine academic content at all. I know that many will be deeply disappointed by my decision and see it as elitist and divisive. I know that some will feel that I will not be exclusive enough; and others that I am being too draconian. I also know that I cannot please all of the people all of the time." For the past six weeks, I have been doing my best to follow the policy stated above. And all that I can claim for sure that I have achieved in this time is that I have not pleased all of the members all of the time. For the record though, I do NOT believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon and author of the plays and poems attributed to him had the knowledge of Hebrew that a couple of members of this list believe he had. Neither do I believe that Shakespeare imbedded Hebrew transliterations or elaborate secret codes into his writing. In this regard, I believe my position is in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the community of academic Shakespeare scholars. Nevertheless, many find in Shakespeare's works what they are looking for, scholars and non-scholars alike, and I will occasionally publish those findings even though I deeply object to them. Preemptively yours, Hardy M. Cook, Editor PS: I agree completely with Larry Weiss that there is absolutely no reason to take the "hindered me a million" statement literally and that the tendency to do so is the source of much misdirected energy expressed here. _______________________________________________________________ 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.