Negative publicity

I am sure that we suffer a lot from this because of the image Shakespeare created of the Princes being done away with. Can we not counter it by some forum members writing a play putting the opposite point of view?
Suppose we agree the most likely alternative suspect (e.g. Tudor, excuse my language) and show all his character defects (parsimony, genocide) together with a "Crimewatch" reconstruction of the murders.

I have only heard of two pro-Richard plays.

Dickon. by Gordon Daviot (aka Josephine Tey)
Richard and Anne. by Maxwell Anderson

From what I heard the two plays rather paled to Shakespeare's one.
Isn't it sad when genius is used for propaganda though to do
Shakespeare justice he may had never questioned the version. Well why
should he? He probably grew up with the story and thought,
wow ,wouldn't this make a good play!

Though from what I heard the Anderson play sounds interesting but I'm
not sure it has ever been performed.

Helen

A Friend of mine tried to have Derek Jacobi do Dickon in the same season as
Shakespeare¹s Richard, but when they read it everyone realised that it is
more or less unplayable. Would have been worse up against genius too.
Paul

> From: sweethelly2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:15:57 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Negative publicity
>
> I have only heard of two pro-Richard plays.
>
> Dickon. by Gordon Daviot (aka Josephine Tey)
> Richard and Anne. by Maxwell Anderson
>
>> From what I heard the two plays rather paled to Shakespeare's one.
> Isn't it sad when genius is used for propaganda though to do
> Shakespeare justice he may had never questioned the version. Well why
> should he? He probably grew up with the story and thought,
> wow ,wouldn't this make a good play!
>
> Though from what I heard the Anderson play sounds interesting but I'm
> not sure it has ever been performed.
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Stephen wrote: I am sure that we suffer a lot from
this because of the image Shakespeare
created of the Princes being done away with. Can we
not counter it by some forum members writing a play
putting the opposite point of view?
Suppose we agree the most likely alternative suspect
(e.g. Tudor, excuse my language) and show all his
character defects (parsimony, genocide) together
with a "Crimewatch" reconstruction of the murders.

***

Jessica wrote: There is one flaw with that idea -
Shakespeare being one of the greatest writers of all
time. There have been alternative/counter versions of
Richard III - there was one by Paines Plough back in
the 1970's which was very good - but unfortunately
the Bard packs more weight.

***

Here's a suggestion: Instead of competing with
Shakespeare, produce the play he *didn't* write:
Henry the 7th, parts 1 and 2.

In Part 1, make Bishop John Morton the central
character. Show him manipulating Buckingham, then
skewering Henry's subjects on his fork--one by one,
the way Tudor historians claim Richard picked off
everyone between himself and the English throne.

In Part 2, Show Henry VII's propagandists as
apprentices to Louis XI's propagandists. Near the end
show the propaganda team explaining to the audience
why they had to blacken Richard's reputation for the
greater good--the way the knights who killed Thomas
Becket tell their audience they had to kill him for
the greater good near the end of Murder in the
Cathedral.

End it with Henry VII brooding like a dragon over a
treasury that his son Henry VIII will empty.

Hopefully this would be very controversial, sell lots
of tickets, and be performed year after year after
year.

Marion








__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Go on then Marion. Get started! I¹m sure we¹ll all look forward to seeing it
on Broadway!
Paul
not being facetious, but wondering how anybody could bring themselves to
spending so much time with Henry Tudor! No matter the cause.

> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Negative publicity
>
> Stephen wrote: I am sure that we suffer a lot from
> this because of the image Shakespeare
> created of the Princes being done away with. Can we
> not counter it by some forum members writing a play
> putting the opposite point of view?
> Suppose we agree the most likely alternative suspect
> (e.g. Tudor, excuse my language) and show all his
> character defects (parsimony, genocide) together
> with a "Crimewatch" reconstruction of the murders.
>
> ***
>
> Jessica wrote: There is one flaw with that idea -
> Shakespeare being one of the greatest writers of all
> time. There have been alternative/counter versions of
> Richard III - there was one by Paines Plough back in
> the 1970's which was very good - but unfortunately
> the Bard packs more weight.
>
> ***
>
> Here's a suggestion: Instead of competing with
> Shakespeare, produce the play he *didn't* write:
> Henry the 7th, parts 1 and 2.
>
> In Part 1, make Bishop John Morton the central
> character. Show him manipulating Buckingham, then
> skewering Henry's subjects on his fork--one by one,
> the way Tudor historians claim Richard picked off
> everyone between himself and the English throne.
>
> In Part 2, Show Henry VII's propagandists as
> apprentices to Louis XI's propagandists. Near the end
> show the propaganda team explaining to the audience
> why they had to blacken Richard's reputation for the
> greater good--the way the knights who killed Thomas
> Becket tell their audience they had to kill him for
> the greater good near the end of Murder in the
> Cathedral.
>
> End it with Henry VII brooding like a dragon over a
> treasury that his son Henry VIII will empty.
>
> Hopefully this would be very controversial, sell lots
> of tickets, and be performed year after year after
> year.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

That's the idea.
----- Original Message -----
From: marion davis
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: Negative publicity


Stephen wrote: I am sure that we suffer a lot from
this because of the image Shakespeare
created of the Princes being done away with. Can we
not counter it by some forum members writing a play
putting the opposite point of view?
Suppose we agree the most likely alternative suspect
(e.g. Tudor, excuse my language) and show all his
character defects (parsimony, genocide) together
with a "Crimewatch" reconstruction of the murders.

***

Jessica wrote: There is one flaw with that idea -
Shakespeare being one of the greatest writers of all
time. There have been alternative/counter versions of
Richard III - there was one by Paines Plough back in
the 1970's which was very good - but unfortunately
the Bard packs more weight.

***

Here's a suggestion: Instead of competing with
Shakespeare, produce the play he *didn't* write:
Henry the 7th, parts 1 and 2.

In Part 1, make Bishop John Morton the central
character. Show him manipulating Buckingham, then
skewering Henry's subjects on his fork--one by one,
the way Tudor historians claim Richard picked off
everyone between himself and the English throne.

In Part 2, Show Henry VII's propagandists as
apprentices to Louis XI's propagandists. Near the end
show the propaganda team explaining to the audience
why they had to blacken Richard's reputation for the
greater good--the way the knights who killed Thomas
Becket tell their audience they had to kill him for
the greater good near the end of Murder in the
Cathedral.

End it with Henry VII brooding like a dragon over a
treasury that his son Henry VIII will empty.

Hopefully this would be very controversial, sell lots
of tickets, and be performed year after year after
year.

Marion








__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Paul wrote: Go on then Marion. Get started! Iým sure
weýll all look forward to seeing it on Broadway!
Paul
not being facetious, but wondering how anybody could
bring themselves to spending so much time with Henry
Tudor! No matter the cause.

***

Well, I can't do it alone. <G>

If I remember correctly, Stephen suggested that
Richard III Society members--that's plural--write the
play.

So I just pitched in my two cents worth.

If I'm going to spend the time it takes with Henry VII
and John Morton and the propaganda team, I definitely
have to have company.

Volunteers?

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Paul wrote: Go on then Marion. Get started! I¹m sure
> we¹ll all look forward to seeing it on Broadway!
> Paul
> not being facetious, but wondering how anybody could
> bring themselves to spending so much time with Henry
> Tudor! No matter the cause.
>
> ***
>
> Well, I can't do it alone. <G>
>
> If I remember correctly, Stephen suggested that
> Richard III Society members--that's plural--write the
> play.
>
> So I just pitched in my two cents worth.
>
> If I'm going to spend the time it takes with Henry VII
> and John Morton and the propaganda team, I definitely
> have to have company.
>
> Volunteers?
>
> Marion
>
> I volunteer -- threat of death ans attainder not necessary, but you
can have my first-born son as hostage, but you'll have to take his
wife, too.

Katy
>
>
> __________________________________
>

>
>not being facetious, but wondering how anybody could
>bring themselves to spending so much time with Henry
>Tudor! No matter the cause.
>
>***
>
>Well, I can't do it alone. <G>
>
>If I remember correctly, Stephen suggested that
>Richard III Society members--that's plural--write the
>play.
>
>If I'm going to spend the time it takes with Henry VII
>and John Morton and the propaganda team, I definitely
>have to have company.
>
>Volunteers?
>
All I can say Marion is that it is incredibly difficult to write with
somebody else, and even more difficult when it is on a subject dear
to one's heart. OK Hank Tudor isn't anybody's favourite, but as the
idea is to rescue Richard's reputation, it will be very emotional.
And would you pay to see a play called Henry VII? :-)
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >
> >not being facetious, but wondering how anybody could
> >bring themselves to spending so much time with Henry
> >Tudor! No matter the cause.
> >
> >***
> >
> >Well, I can't do it alone. <G>
> >
> >If I remember correctly, Stephen suggested that
> >Richard III Society members--that's plural--write the
> >play.
> >
> >If I'm going to spend the time it takes with Henry VII
> >and John Morton and the propaganda team, I definitely
> >have to have company.
> >
> >Volunteers?
> >
> All I can say Marion is that it is incredibly difficult to write
with
> somebody else, and even more difficult when it is on a subject dear
> to one's heart. OK Hank Tudor isn't anybody's favourite, but as the
> idea is to rescue Richard's reputation, it will be very emotional.
> And would you pay to see a play called Henry VII? :-)
> Paul

Sounds a yawn. I'm thinking the only modern playwright who seems to
have been able to take on Shakespeare & come out on top is Tom
Stoppard. Does anyone know his views on Richard III?
Marie
PS This not really a serious question.

Katy wrote: I volunteer -- threat of death ans
attainder not necessary, but you can have my
first-born son as hostage, but you'll have to take his

wife, too.

***

Thanks, but I've got no room to keep hostages. Can
you send me a pair of floor-to-ceiling bookshelves
instead? <G><G>

I look forward to a profitable collaboration.

Marion


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Paul wrote: All I can say Marion is that it is
incredibly difficult to write with somebody else, and
even more difficult when it is on a subject dear
to one's heart. OK Hank Tudor isn't anybody's
favourite, but as the idea is to rescue Richard's
reputation, it will be very emotional.
And would you pay to see a play called Henry VII? :-)

***

It depends on who's acting in it. If Alec Guiness was
still alive and working, I'd go to see it.

Henry VII is just a working title, though. If Katy
and I do put something together, something will come
up while we're writing.

Like: "Days of Forks and Roses" or "Edward and Richard
are dead, aren't they?"

Marion






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: Sounds a yawn. I'm thinking the only
modern playwright who seems to have been able to take
on Shakespeare & come out on top is Tom
Stoppard. Does anyone know his views on Richard III?
Marie
PS This not really a serious question.

***

Here's an unserious answer:


Then we should market the play to insomniacs.

Look for Tom Stoppard's views on Richard III in the
script of "Shakespeare in Love." I have a theory that
there's a line referring to each of Shakespeare's
plays hidden in that script. Find the line referring
to Richard III and go from there.

Marion, probably not ready to compete for a literary
detective award <g>







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> That's the idea.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marion davis
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 6:18 PM
> Subject: RE: Negative publicity
>
>
> Stephen wrote: I am sure that we suffer a lot from
> this because of the image Shakespeare
> created of the Princes being done away with. Can we
> not counter it by some forum members writing a play
> putting the opposite point of view?
> Suppose we agree the most likely alternative suspect
> (e.g. Tudor, excuse my language) and show all his
> character defects (parsimony, genocide) together
> with a "Crimewatch" reconstruction of the murders.
>
> ***
>
> Jessica wrote: There is one flaw with that idea -
> Shakespeare being one of the greatest writers of all
> time. There have been alternative/counter versions of
> Richard III - there was one by Paines Plough back in
> the 1970's which was very good - but unfortunately
> the Bard packs more weight.
>
> ***
>
> Here's a suggestion: Instead of competing with
> Shakespeare, produce the play he *didn't* write:
> Henry the 7th, parts 1 and 2.
>
> In Part 1, make Bishop John Morton the central
> character. Show him manipulating Buckingham, then
> skewering Henry's subjects on his fork--one by one,
> the way Tudor historians claim Richard picked off
> everyone between himself and the English throne.
>
> In Part 2, Show Henry VII's propagandists as
> apprentices to Louis XI's propagandists. Near the end
> show the propaganda team explaining to the audience
> why they had to blacken Richard's reputation for the
> greater good--the way the knights who killed Thomas
> Becket tell their audience they had to kill him for
> the greater good near the end of Murder in the
> Cathedral.
>
> End it with Henry VII brooding like a dragon over a
> treasury that his son Henry VIII will empty.
>
> Hopefully this would be very controversial, sell lots
> of tickets, and be performed year after year after
> year.
>
> Marion

Okay, I'm game - I volunteer. I'm thinking, though, how do we do the
Shakespeare history title without it sounding dead dull - ie 'Henry
VII Part I by Master William Shakespeare (Not)'?

Also, it would need to ape 'Richard III' in some way. The infectious
wittiness of Richard as villain draws the audience in. Could that be
transferred to Morton? or Buckingham??(I now have a mental picture of
Bishop Morton on stage performing the 'Vatican Rag' - and could he
carry a big garden fork instead of a crozier?); And how does Richard
himself come into it? do we get to do Bosworth?
Sorry, I think I'm getting frivolous again. But I really like the
dragon-hoard imagery.
can we have those daft alchemists and astrologers as well, please?

anyway, as I say, I'm game to give it a go, but I think Paul's right
and a joint write will probably be very hard going. We're all going
to have to agree on historical interpretation, for a start. Never
mind writing style.

But to rival any Shakespeare tragedy it would have to do more than be
a competent history play. Even if it had a lot of humour in it, it
would have to opne some sort of window on the human condition and all
that rot.

Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>

>> >
> > Jessica wrote: There is one flaw with that idea -
> > Shakespeare being one of the greatest writers of all
> > time. There have been alternative/counter versions of
> > Richard III - there was one by Paines Plough back in
> > the 1970's which was very good - but unfortunately
> > the Bard packs more weight.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Here's a suggestion: Instead of competing with
> > Shakespeare, produce the play he *didn't* write:
> > Henry the 7th, parts 1 and 2.
> >
> > In Part 1, make Bishop John Morton the central
> > character. Show him manipulating Buckingham, then
> > skewering Henry's subjects on his fork--one by one,
> > the way Tudor historians claim Richard picked off
> > everyone between himself and the English throne.
> >
> > In Part 2, Show Henry VII's propagandists as
> > apprentices to Louis XI's propagandists. Near the end
> > show the propaganda team explaining to the audience
> > why they had to blacken Richard's reputation for the
> > greater good--the way the knights who killed Thomas
> > Becket tell their audience they had to kill him for
> > the greater good near the end of Murder in the
> > Cathedral.
> >
> > End it with Henry VII brooding like a dragon over a
> > treasury that his son Henry VIII will empty.
> >
> > Hopefully this would be very controversial, sell lots
> > of tickets, and be performed year after year after
> > year.
> >
> > Marion
>
> Okay, I'm game - I volunteer. I'm thinking, though, how do we do
the
> Shakespeare history title without it sounding dead dull - ie 'Henry
> VII Part I by Master William Shakespeare (Not)'?
>
> Also, it would need to ape 'Richard III' in some way. The
infectious
> wittiness of Richard as villain draws the audience in. Could that
be
> transferred to Morton? or Buckingham??(I now have a mental picture
of
> Bishop Morton on stage performing the 'Vatican Rag' - and could he
> carry a big garden fork instead of a crozier?); And how does
Richard
> himself come into it? do we get to do Bosworth?
> Sorry, I think I'm getting frivolous again. But I really like the
> dragon-hoard imagery.
> can we have those daft alchemists and astrologers as well, please?
>
> anyway, as I say, I'm game to give it a go, but I think Paul's
right
> and a joint write will probably be very hard going. We're all going
> to have to agree on historical interpretation, for a start. Never
> mind writing style.
>
> But to rival any Shakespeare tragedy it would have to do more than
be
> a competent history play. Even if it had a lot of humour in it, it
> would have to opne some sort of window on the human condition and
all
> that rot.
>
> Marie
> >

PS. On the subject of that fork. Could it transmute into a pitchfork
at some point??

Or could Morton waltz into Tower with muddy garden fork over shoulder
and punnet of his best strawberries in his other hand?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Katy wrote: I volunteer -- threat of death ans
> attainder not necessary, but you can have my
> first-born son as hostage, but you'll have to take his
>
> wife, too.
>
> ***
>
> Thanks, but I've got no room to keep hostages. Can
> you send me a pair of floor-to-ceiling bookshelves
> instead? <G><G>
>
> I look forward to a profitable collaboration.
>
> Marion

Not a chance...I need all my bookcases and more. My afore-mentioned
first-born son manages a construction company, but does he send over
a crew of stalwart carpenters to build bookcases for his aged mother
ans her incipient avalanche of reading and research material? Nooooo.

Katy
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

> Henry VII is just a working title, though. If Katy
> and I do put something together, something will come
> up while we're writing.
>
> Like: "Days of Forks and Roses" or "Edward and Richard
> are dead, aren't they?"
>
> Marion

I think "Days of Forks and Roses" has a certain ring to it. Or
maybe "Damn That William Brandon!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

> Henry VII is just a working title, though. If Katy
> and I do put something together, something will come
> up while we're writing.
>
> Like: "Days of Forks and Roses" or "Edward and Richard
> are dead, aren't they?"
>
> Marion

Or maybe "The Little Bastards in the Tower."

Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Henry VII is just a working title, though. If Katy
> > and I do put something together, something will come
> > up while we're writing.
> >
> > Like: "Days of Forks and Roses" or "Edward and Richard
> > are dead, aren't they?"
> >
> > Marion
>
> Or maybe "The Little Bastards in the Tower."
>
> Katy

I like that. And it does have the advantage of telling the punters
what it's about.

On the subject of the fork again, perhaps if Morton's walking into
the Tower from an early session in his strawberry beds it should be a
small weeding fork. A fork for every occasion, perhaps? As regards
the devil's pitchfork, I think that might go rather nicely with
Cardinal red. . . . The financial fork would certainly have just two
prongs - pitchfork, barbecue fork. . . .


Going back to Henry as dragon (forked tongue?), it's occurred to me
that this is the only story where everyone's told the dragon's
supposed to win the fight and get the maiden. That would generally be
regarded as a big mistake, now, wouldn't it?
Richard as latter-day St George?

Marie


> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com