 |
 |
In the nineteenth-century, it was felt that Shakespeare's women were his chief glory--vide Mary Cowden Clarke's bestselling The girlhood of Shakespeare's heroines. Counting the numbers of lines seems like an arbitrary judgement, in a theatre in which the audience was also male, and the expected subject matter--sad tales of the death of kings--pretty much precluded the p.c. 50/50 split in terms of lines spoken. Shakespeare, within the context of his times, has always been considered extraordinary for his women characters. Frances de La Tour certainly stole the show in the recent Antony and Cleopatra at the RSC--and the script gave her plenty of aid. David Latane On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 [log in to unmask] wrote: > In the most recent Abbey Theatre (Dublin) production of The Tempest, I > found Miranda unbearable. I know some of the lines attributed to Miranda > in some versions are given to Prospero in others. It's not just the > lines though: it's how far you're willing to push them, or hide within them. > In this production, Miranda was directed to be a ninny. I would imagine > that the fact women's roles were played by young boys had the effect of > shrinking them: women's roles in Shakespeare already come shrunken, in > terms of lines to be spoken. So there's a shrink within a shrink. In > other words, if you're paid by the word, few people playing women's roles > in Shakespeare are going to make a killing. But there's no need to go to > Shakespeare, who was one of the greatest Irishmen ever. Women's roles in > most contemporary movies are similarly shrunken, and actresses are > similarly directed to be ninnies, e.g., the mom in E.T. > Mairead %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%