Look at the website!

It seems that someone has written this Ricardian play we keep talking about. It will be performed in London soon.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
>
> It seems that someone has written this Ricardian play we keep
talking about. It will be performed in London soon.
>
>
>

Thanks for drawing to our attention!

This sounds really hopeful. I'll have to see if I can get down to see
it.

Marie

PS. Though in this day and age, to compete with popularity of
Shakespeare do we need a big gut-wrenching musical - a la Les Mis?
(or should that be Aux Mis????!!)

I've always thought that a movie would be nice.

-- Bob Waters

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
>
> It seems that someone has written this Ricardian play we keep
talking about. It will be performed in London soon.
>
>
>

Thanks for drawing to our attention!

This sounds really hopeful. I'll have to see if I can get down to see
it.

Marie

PS. Though in this day and age, to compete with popularity of
Shakespeare do we need a big gut-wrenching musical - a la Les Mis?
(or should that be Aux Mis????!!)


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

> I've always thought that a movie would be nice.
>
> -- Bob Waters

But who would play Richard? *g*

Jenny

--

> From: Bob Waters <bobwaters1950@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:20:53 -0800 (PST)
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Look at the website!
>
> I've always thought that a movie would be nice.
>
> -- Bob Waters

Nice Bo? Only ³Nice²?
I cannot think of anything more wonderful than a super spectacular movie
about the wars of the Roses telling Richard¹s real story.
Just so happens I¹ve written one!
Anyone got a few million dollars going spare?
Paul Trevor Bale

A young Jonathan Frid might work. Or a young Lance Hendrickson.

clanwilliam@... wrote:> I've always thought that a movie would be nice.
>
> -- Bob Waters

But who would play Richard? *g*

Jenny

--

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

--- In , clanwilliam@f... wrote:
> > I've always thought that a movie would be nice.
> >
> > -- Bob Waters
>
> But who would play Richard? *g*
>
> Jenny
>
> --


Do we dare think Hollywood?

Could Tom Cruise be taught the right sort of accent????

Even he's too old.

How about Sean Bean as Ratcliffe?

Pity this isn't the sixties. I'd have loved to see Nyree Dawn Porter
as Elizabeth Woodville.

Marie

> But who would play Richard? *g*
>
> Jenny
>
> --


a couple years ago, i had a little time on my hands
and began a webpage sort of around who I would cast to
be whom. I went for Viggo Mortenson. yeah he's a
little old, but he kind of looks the part. Kinda.

Michelle

http://www.millefiori.net/michelle/richardiii.html
(Keep in mind, this was not done with any seriousness please.)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

--- In , MIchelle
<michelle@m...> wrote:
>
> > But who would play Richard? *g*
> >
> > Jenny
> >
> > --
>
>
> a couple years ago, i had a little time on my hands
> and began a webpage sort of around who I would cast to
> be whom. I went for Viggo Mortenson. yeah he's a
> little old, but he kind of looks the part. Kinda.
>
> Michelle

Yes, I'd thought about Viggo. He can certainly do the riding and the
swordsmanship. And he does have a more Ricardian chin than Tom
Cruise. But I wondered if he wouldn't be young enough. I suppose it
might work as long as the film concentrated on the last few years of
Richard's life.
I loved him as Aragorn. And that's quite a compliment as I'd never
yet either heard an actor or seen an illustration that measured up to
the Aragorn in my head.
We obviously need an actor with quite an emotional range - by which I
don't mean an over-actor. My Richard is quite a reserved character,
quite spiritually centred (or, as J. Hughes would have it, an
individualist religious fanatic).
Anyway, that would give us Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean. Anyone for
Francis?

Marie

PS. I think Nicole Kidman can do anybody, and she has the right look
for my money, so she gets my vote as Anne Neville.

>
> http://www.millefiori.net/michelle/richardiii.html
> (Keep in mind, this was not done with any seriousness please.)
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

How strange, when I was thinking about it, I saw Nicole Kidman as Anne Neville. I agree that she is very verstalite and willing to take risks with her roles.

Richard, can't think of anyone except I think an older actor could do him. If those portraits of him are realistic he looks older than his 32 years. I am always taken back when I remember how young he was.

I wonder if men in those days looked older than they do now. Being out alot more in the open air, in all weathers. No air conditioning cars and offices.


Yes, I'd thought about Viggo. He can certainly do the riding and the
swordsmanship. And he does have a more Ricardian chin than Tom
Cruise. But I wondered if he wouldn't be young enough. I suppose it
might work as long as the film concentrated on the last few years of
Richard's life.
I loved him as Aragorn. And that's quite a compliment as I'd never
yet either heard an actor or seen an illustration that measured up to
the Aragorn in my head.
We obviously need an actor with quite an emotional range - by which I
don't mean an over-actor. My Richard is quite a reserved character,
quite spiritually centred (or, as J. Hughes would have it, an
individualist religious fanatic).
Anyway, that would give us Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean. Anyone for
Francis?

Marie

PS. I think Nicole Kidman can do anybody, and she has the right look
for my money, so she gets my vote as Anne Neville.

> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT






---------------------------------


Yahoo! Groups Links


To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
- New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:35:42 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Look at the website!
>
> Anyway, that would give us Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean.
Can I remind you guys that Richard was only 32 when he died?
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:35:42 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Look at the website!
> >
> > Anyway, that would give us Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean.
> Can I remind you guys that Richard was only 32 when he died?
> Paul

No. We've already admitted Viggo's too old really (and Sean Bean's
for old Ratcliffe anyway).

However, it would almost certainly be someone a bit too old. Most of
these actors play roles too young for them and you don't notice.

By the way, what period does your script cover?

Marie

Yeah, Leonardo DiCaprio is 28!!!(doesn't he look like a baby!)
Anne Neville died at 28 and Nicole Kidman is 37. It doesn't matter
how old actors are, do they look the part? Who cares, it's all just
dumb-fun.
I'd have to think people looked a bit older in their 30's back then
than they do today.
Michelle

from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale

> No. We've already admitted Viggo's too old really (and Sean Bean's
> for old Ratcliffe anyway).
Who wasn¹t that old either!
> However, it would almost certainly be someone a bit too old. Most of
> these actors play roles too young for them and you don't notice.
Not necessarily. My guy, and no I¹m not giving away who it is, can play the
whole part from 17 to 32, and has the emotional range to do a great job.
> By the way, what period does your script cover?
October 2nd 1452 to August 23rd 1485!
It is The Was of the Roses from RichardŒs point of view in that I am
including little that does not actually effect or involve him directly.
Paul

> > By the way, what period does your script cover?
> October 2nd 1452 to August 23rd 1485!
> It is The Was of the Roses from RichardŒs point of view in that I
am
> including little that does not actually effect or involve him
directly.
> Paul


Paul

That's a hell of a sweeep to cover in one film. Wouldn't it be
better to do it as a TV series? (You have made films and I haven't,
so I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs.) I set out to write a
novel covering 1469-85 (with a brief Prologue early in 1463) and the
writing rapidly outgrew the timescale, so now Vol 1 is 1469-71,
withe the main focus on Warwick. The hero departs on pilgrimage to
the Holy Land in autumn 1471 to expiate his sins, and Vol 2 will
cover the rest.

Ann

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
>
> It seems that someone has written this Ricardian play we keep
talking about. It will be performed in London soon.
>
>
>

Do I have a tech problem here? There is no web site to look at!

How about Ray Winstone as Warwick? I get the feeling there are 2
ways of viewing the earl: bullish, aggressive and powerful
(Winstone) or smooth and cultivated with maybe a hint of menace :
Anthony Hopkins?.
Ben Affleck for Richard III? Or Andy Garcia maybe? Both have right
colouring if not age. Either would do it for me...<Drools>
I know she's dark and not blonde, but Catherine Zeta Jones might
make a beautiful Elizabeth Woodville. I don't know if she's any good
at bitchy.
Catherine Deneuve as Duchess Cecily? Or is she dead?
Al Pacino as Richard duke of York... (Anyone seen his piece on
Richard III? Can we forgive him?)
I hope someone can find arole for John Malkovich...
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> >
> > It seems that someone has written this Ricardian play we keep
> talking about. It will be performed in London soon.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Do I have a tech problem here? There is no web site to look at!
>
> How about Ray Winstone as Warwick? I get the feeling there are 2
> ways of viewing the earl: bullish, aggressive and powerful
> (Winstone) or smooth and cultivated with maybe a hint of menace :
> Anthony Hopkins?.
> Ben Affleck for Richard III? Or Andy Garcia maybe? Both have right
> colouring if not age. Either would do it for me...<Drools>
> I know she's dark and not blonde, but Catherine Zeta Jones might
> make a beautiful Elizabeth Woodville. I don't know if she's any
good
> at bitchy.
> Catherine Deneuve as Duchess Cecily? Or is she dead?
> Al Pacino as Richard duke of York... (Anyone seen his piece on
> Richard III? Can we forgive him?)
> I hope someone can find arole for John Malkovich...
> B

I also wondered if Tim Roth might make a suitably cowardly and
snivelling sort of Henry Tudor?
B

from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale

> It is The Was of the Roses from RichardŒs point of view
Of course that should read Wars not Was!!:-)
Paul

from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale

Hello Ann
I started writing it at Tewkesbury then kept finding myself having to
explain how the character got to that point in the story, so started going
back and back until it told all of Richard¹s story.
Yes realistically it is a North and South type mini series, and is now
divided into 5 x 120 min episodes. BUt Lord of the Rings has shown there is
a market for BIG SERIALS, so why not? I always did think BIG!
Regards
Paul

>>> By the way, what period does your script cover?
>> October 2nd 1452 to August 23rd 1485!
>> It is The Was of the Roses from RichardŒs point of view in that I
> am
>> including little that does not actually effect or involve him
> directly.
>> Paul
>
>
> Paul
>
> That's a hell of a sweeep to cover in one film. Wouldn't it be
> better to do it as a TV series? (You have made films and I haven't,
> so I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs.) I set out to write a
> novel covering 1469-85 (with a brief Prologue early in 1463) and the
> writing rapidly outgrew the timescale, so now Vol 1 is 1469-71,
> withe the main focus on Warwick. The hero departs on pilgrimage to
> the Holy Land in autumn 1471 to expiate his sins, and Vol 2 will
> cover the rest.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> 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/
>
>

from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale

> It is The Was of the Roses from RichardRs point of view
Of course that should read Wars not Was!!:-)
Paul
-------------------------
That's okay: I found a download of Prescott's history of the Catholic
Kings which makes reference to the Wars of the Hoses.

Incidentally, Paul, you know I have a Ricardian play too, which covers
from Edward's death to the end of the Buckingham rebellion. It was
produced on a small scale a couple of years ago, and got a reading at
the 2000 US Richard III Society AGM. Would you be interested in a
gander at it?

Maria
Elena@...

from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale

>> Ben Affleck for Richard III? Or Andy Garcia maybe? Both have right
>> colouring if not age. Either would do it for me...<Drools>
I¹m hanging over a bucket myself drolling in a different way from you I
expect:-)
Ben Affleck? I thought we were talking actors!!!!

Malkovich might make a fine Henry VI.

Somehow, Andy Garcia as RIII strikes me as unlikely, though Affleck might
be OK. Doesn't capture the brooding, introvert quality, though.

-- Bob Waters

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:10:36 -0000, "brunhild613" <brunhild@...>
said:
> This message only has an HTML part -- this is a text generated
> representation
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> >
> > It seems that someone has written this Ricardian play we keep
> talking about. It will be performed in London soon.
> >
> >
> >
> Do I have a tech problem here? There is no web site to look at!
> How about Ray Winstone as Warwick? I get the feeling there are 2
> ways of viewing the earl: bullish, aggressive and powerful
> (Winstone) or smooth and cultivated with maybe a hint of menace :
> Anthony Hopkins?.
> Ben Affleck for Richard III? Or Andy Garcia maybe? Both have right
> colouring if not age. Either would do it for me...<Drools>
> I know she's dark and not blonde, but Catherine Zeta Jones might
> make a beautiful Elizabeth Woodville. I don't know if she's any good
> at bitchy.
> Catherine Deneuve as Duchess Cecily? Or is she dead?
> Al Pacino as Richard duke of York... (Anyone seen his piece on
> Richard III? Can we forgive him?)
> I hope someone can find arole for John Malkovich...
> B
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> [1]click here
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> [2]http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [3][email protected]
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [4]Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
> References
>
> 1.
> http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12ca6b1qh/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705297333:HM/EXP=1075140642/A=1945638/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178383&partid=4116732
> 2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> 3.
> mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe
> 4. http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Bob Waters
bobwaters@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , clanwilliam@f...
wrote:
> > > I've always thought that a movie would be nice.
> > >
> > > -- Bob Waters
> >
> > But who would play Richard? *g*
> >
> > Jenny
> >
> > --
>


Colin Firth?

And Alan Rickman for Richard, Duke of York.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:35:42 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Look at the website!
> > >
> > > Anyway, that would give us Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean.
> > Can I remind you guys that Richard was only 32 when he died?
> > Paul
>
> No. We've already admitted Viggo's too old really (and Sean Bean's
> for old Ratcliffe anyway).
>
> However, it would almost certainly be someone a bit too old. Most
of
> these actors play roles too young for them and you don't notice.
>
> By the way, what period does your script cover?
>
> Marie

--- In , "Bob Waters"
<bobwaters@e...> wrote:
> Malkovich might make a fine Henry VI.
>
> Somehow, Andy Garcia as RIII strikes me as unlikely, though
Affleck might
> be OK. Doesn't capture the brooding, introvert quality, though.
>
> -- Bob Waters
>
Well I was thinking of him as Mercutio when he seemed to brood quite
well, and I fear I have no idea if he's any good as a "proper"
actor! As for Garcia, accent would be wrong but he really has that
dark, serious brooding quality. I wasn't sure Mortensen has it, and
anyway - apologies to all for this heresy - but I thought maybe he
was too good looking to play Richard? I don't think R was handsome
exactly ....And I have just realised I didn't mean Garcia - I meant
Antonio Banderas.....I don't get out much, as you can see.....<hangs
head in embarrassment> Lord, I don't even know who Garcia is! (Is
that sad? Well, not as sad as not knowing who Richard III was!)
B

--- In , "helenmpearson"
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> And Alan Rickman for Richard, Duke of York.

I wouldn't care who he played as long as he was in it and wearing
black....excuse me while I go for a cold shower...
B
>

--- In , "helenmpearson"
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , clanwilliam@f...
> wrote:
> > > > I've always thought that a movie would be nice.
> > > >
> > > > -- Bob Waters
> > >
> > > But who would play Richard? *g*
> > >
> > > Jenny
> > >
> > > --
> >
>
>
> Colin Firth?

I wondered about Firth for Francis Lovell....?
B

Garcia- quite a good actor, actually- is the guy who succeeded Michael as
head of the Corleone family in Godfather III.

No, Bandaras is too pretty. By the best accounts I've seen Richard was
attractive, but in a more rugged sort of way.

-- Bob

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:56:30 -0000, "brunhild613" <brunhild@...>
said:
> This message only has an HTML part -- this is a text generated
> representation
>
>
> --- In , "Bob Waters"
> <bobwaters@e...> wrote:
> > Malkovich might make a fine Henry VI.
> >
> > Somehow, Andy Garcia as RIII strikes me as unlikely, though
> Affleck might
> > be OK. Doesn't capture the brooding, introvert quality, though.
> >
> > -- Bob Waters
> >
> Well I was thinking of him as Mercutio when he seemed to brood quite
> well, and I fear I have no idea if he's any good as a "proper"
> actor! As for Garcia, accent would be wrong but he really has that
> dark, serious brooding quality. I wasn't sure Mortensen has it, and
> anyway - apologies to all for this heresy - but I thought maybe he
> was too good looking to play Richard? I don't think R was handsome
> exactly ....And I have just realised I didn't mean Garcia - I meant
> Antonio Banderas.....I don't get out much, as you can see.....<hangs
> head in embarrassment> Lord, I don't even know who Garcia is! (Is
> that sad? Well, not as sad as not knowing who Richard III was!)
> B
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> [1]http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [2][email protected]
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [3]Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
> References
>
> 1. http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> 2.
> mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe
> 3. http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Bob Waters
bobwaters@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service

In mentioning actors people had mentioned about whether some could do the accent.

I wonder what Richard's voice was like. I guess people would have him speaking in an upper class accent but did fifteenth century aristocrats speak the same as the present day ones. Somehow I can't quite hear him in a "plummy" voice, certainly not a Prince Charles sort of voice.

Is there any account of what sort of voice he did have?

Helen

P.S. Yes, yes have to have Alan Rickman in there somewhere.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
- New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
> In mentioning actors people had mentioned about whether some could
do the accent.
>
> I wonder what Richard's voice was like. I guess people would have
him speaking in an upper class accent but did fifteenth century
aristocrats speak the same as the present day ones. Somehow I can't
quite hear him in a "plummy" voice, certainly not a Prince Charles
sort of voice.
>
> Is there any account of what sort of voice he did have?
>
> Helen
>
> P.S. Yes, yes have to have Alan Rickman in there somewhere.
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

No account. The accepted wisdom is that the upper class accent, as we
know it, is a much more recent invention. Probably started with the
public schools. In fact, it seems to have only got really silly when
the insecure middle classes started aping the uppper class accent and
exaggerating it, and then the upper classes had to keep up. . . .
I've heard recording of the royals at the end of the 19th century and
amazingly they sounded quite normal, whereas Florence Nightingale was
insufferably plummy.
As far as the fifteenth century is concerned, there must have been an
accepted way of speaking at court. Dialects varied so much from one
part of the country to another as to be mutually unintelligible, so
the idea, often claimed in books a few years back, that the lords
would have spoken like everybody else where they lived, is not really
tenable. Wroe in her 'Perkin' gives some interesting asides on the
sort of mannered speech that was fashionable amongst the educated
elite at court - here she's talking about vocabulary and displays of
wit rather than accent, but it is likely that lords and courtiers
used a form of London speech to communicate with each other.

And that is in itself a complication, because the London accent is
apparently a form of east midlands, not the same as what was spoken
in the surrounding areas. So many weavers from Lincolnshire, etc, had
apparently moved into the city in the 14th century that they changed
the accent - in rather the same way that the scouse accent developed
in Liverpool through influx of Welsh and Irish.

My own feeling is that Richard would have spoken the 15th century
equivalent of standard English, but with some measure of a northern
accent, and possibly the odd Yorkshire term when being less formal.

I would vote against Antonio Banderas. Wrong sort of face AND wrong
accent.
I don't think we need worry about dark hair and stuff, just facial
shape, general build & eye colour. Have you ever seen Viggo Mortensen
when he's not being Aragorn? Not dark, and not NEARLY so good-
looking. It's amazing what the make-up department can do. We need to
stick to the idea of an actor of the right calibre who is not too
tall, a slim wiry build and grey/green/blue eyes. I also don't know
whether Richard was handsome. The Society of Atiquaries Richard
definitely isn't (to my mind), but the NPG/Windsor Richard is. Now, I
know those are a lot later, but I'm not convinced they are copies of
the same original as the Soc. Ant. portrait.
I don't know whether Viggo Mortensen could do Richard. His accent did
tend to keep slipping in Lord of the Rings, but perhaps the solution
would be to give him a mild Yorkshire accent. He might find that less
likely to slip into American than the southern English diphthongs.
After all, he speaks Danish and Spanish (as well as Elvish!) so can
do the purer vowel sounds fine. I wouldn't have a problem with his
age in a film that just concentrated on the last part of Richard's
life. All the portraits of Richard show him as more lined and
careworn than one would expect for his age, and I'm not convinced
this is mere Tudor tampering to try to make him look scowly, as is
sometimes suggested. Whether Viggo can do the brooding I'm not sure,
but I think he actually has a good reputation as an actor and he
certainly goes to town as regards getting himself into character.
What I liked in Lord of the Rings was how much he could get across
without either speaking or over-acting - very important in a role
like this. And he's by all accounts a brilliant swordsman and rider.
I wouldn't want a Richard who had to have stunt doubles for all that -
it wouldn't feel real.

Which is why I also suggested Tom Cruise. He's the right sort of
build, a good actor, rides and can also wield a weapon. And I think
he would identify very easily with the intensity of Richard's
religious life - he's very much that way himself, and has apparently
now taken up the Samurai code for real (if magazine I read in
doctor's is to be believed). However, it's not his normal thing and I
just don't know.

Marie

PS I'm also against Catherine Zeta Jones for Elizabeth Woodville.
Wrong sort of beauty. It would be lovely to find someone with that
distinctive teardrop-shaped face - someone very cool looking. I can't
think of anybody around at the moment. Again, it would depend on when
the film was set, but if it concentrated on 1483-5 you would want
someone a bit middle-aged looking, particularly if the Richard actor
was getting on a bit himself.

Ah me! Wouldn't it be nice if there were actually a film, and
somebody was really asking us for our opinions?

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Personals
> - New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!
>
>

I wonder what Richard's voice was like. I guess people would have
him speaking in
an upper class accent but did fifteenth century aristocrats speak
the same as the
present day ones. Somehow I can't quite hear him in a "plummy"
voice,
certainly not a Prince Charles sort of voice.

Is there any account of what sort of voice he did have?

Helen

P.S. Yes, yes have to have Alan Rickman in there somewhere.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Oh, yes, definitely Mr. Rickman should be there somewhere.

I think Croyland tells us that when Richard made his assurances
about not marrying
Elizabeth of York he spoke in a loud, clear voice. Doesn't say
anything about being
unpleasant, and Croyland seemed to take note of these details: he
lets us know
that when Buckingham was making his bid for Richard, that he didn't
spit when he
talked (the people closer to him must have been relieved; and in
those days of projection,
it might have been a common tendency).

I don't like Banderas, though he does come from around my father's
general area
in Spain, and I should be more loyal. Have no clue as to what he
looks like now,
but Mark Rylance, as he appeared in "Angels and Insects" looked
about
just right for Richard to my eye: not too large or small, compact,
energetic, features
nicely cut without being pretty or overly-handsome.

Maria
elena@...

> I don't like Banderas, though he does come from around my father's
> general area
> in Spain, and I should be more loyal. Have no clue as to what he
> looks like now,
> but Mark Rylance, as he appeared in "Angels and Insects" looked
> about
> just right for Richard to my eye: not too large or small, compact,
> energetic, features
> nicely cut without being pretty or overly-handsome.


Rylance could be very good. He exudes intelligence, a vital part of
playing Richard (which is why I think Tom Cruise would be appalling,
not to mention his lack of success at any form of non-American language)
. Rylance is also a superb Shakespearean which means he's good at the *
dramatic*, something Richard himself was good at. Another option could
be Samuel West - although he might prefer to sink his teeth into the
role of Clarence. He'd have fun with that one!

Jenny

--

Thinking about cast, what about Joanna Lumley for Elizabeth Woodville in later years, probably a bit old, but has a wonderful face and the coolness we come to expect of Elizabeth

Marion

clanwilliam@... wrote:

> I don't like Banderas, though he does come from around my father's
> general area
> in Spain, and I should be more loyal. Have no clue as to what he
> looks like now,
> but Mark Rylance, as he appeared in "Angels and Insects" looked
> about
> just right for Richard to my eye: not too large or small, compact,
> energetic, features
> nicely cut without being pretty or overly-handsome.


Rylance could be very good. He exudes intelligence, a vital part of
playing Richard (which is why I think Tom Cruise would be appalling,
not to mention his lack of success at any form of non-American language)
. Rylance is also a superb Shakespearean which means he's good at the *
dramatic*, something Richard himself was good at. Another option could
be Samuel West - although he might prefer to sink his teeth into the
role of Clarence. He'd have fun with that one!

Jenny

--


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

I'm still stuck for a good Richard, though someone in a similar
debate some time ago suggested Paul McGann, who has the right kind
of looks and is a native Yorkshireman, so can do a suitable accent
without it sounding silly.

Warwick for me is a big burly man with an air of menace - how about
Liam Neeson? But can he do a convincing Yorkshire accent (a bit
stronger than Richard's, but, again, without sounding silly).

I do think we should use British actors where possible, because
Americans adopting 'English' accents almost invariably slip at some
stage.

On accents generally, I think Marie is right to say that what we
think of as upper-crust accents are a fairly recent phenomenon and
most people in the 15th century spoke some form of regional dialect -
most of which were mutually unintelligible. But I think there was
probably some kind of 'court speech' in which people from different
parts could converse in more-or-less high-flown fashion.

For what it's worth, the hero of my novel (Warwick's fictitious
illegitimate son, born and spending his infant years in the wilds of
north Northumberland before training as a knight at Middleham)
speaks in a rural Northumberland accent, (basically a softer version
of Geordie), and is more in tune accent-wise with Lowland Scots than
with effete southerners like Anthony Woodville.

Ann

--- In , clanwilliam@f... wrote:
>
> > I don't like Banderas, though he does come from around my
father's
> > general area
> > in Spain, and I should be more loyal. Have no clue as to what he
> > looks like now,
> > but Mark Rylance, as he appeared in "Angels and Insects" looked
> > about
> > just right for Richard to my eye: not too large or small,
compact,
> > energetic, features
> > nicely cut without being pretty or overly-handsome.
>
>
> Rylance could be very good. He exudes intelligence, a vital part of
> playing Richard (which is why I think Tom Cruise would be
appalling,
> not to mention his lack of success at any form of non-American
language)

I agree that a lot of Tom Cruise's films lack intelligence, which
perhaps in itself suggests lack of judgement. As does the ending of
The Last Samurai. However, I don't know whether he's really thick. I
believe he did actually direct The Last Samurai, and I would say
that, apart from that ending, he made a damn good job of it. I
suspect he's one of those people who's underrated because he's a
pretty boy, and also because he is unpopular for dumping Nicole
Kidman. I've never heard him try a non-American accent, but his
Japanese sounded good. I do have my doubts about his ability to
tackle Richard, though.



> . Rylance is also a superb Shakespearean which means he's good at
the *
> dramatic*, something Richard himself was good at.

Not sure what you mean? Good at serious dramatic roles? Or good at
putting on the dramatics? If the former, then great. However, I don't
see Richard as a dramatic personality in the drama-queen sense. The
notion that he put on the dramatics arose from the Tudor
interpretation that his religiousness and concern for the people's
welfare were all a cynical act. I evidently don't believe that, and I
don't think many people do any more. I would suggest that had Richard
been a better actor he might have won people over more easily. I see
him as rather a reserved, earnest character, dependent in summer 1483
on Buckingham's histrionics. I imagine that scene in the hall of the
Knights of St John as incredibly painful and embarassing to watch. I
don't know Rylance and he may be excellent for the part, but I would
be very unhappy at anybody wanting to use extrovert dramatics to get
Richard across.


Another option could
> be Samuel West - although he might prefer to sink his teeth into
the
> role of Clarence. He'd have fun with that one!
>
> Jenny

I vote for Ian Holm for Catesby, and Kate Winslet for Elizabeth of
York. And I agree with Alan Rickman for somebody.

Marie

>
> --

I don't know Rylance and he may be excellent for the part, but I
would be very unhappy at anybody wanting to use extrovert dramatics
to get Richard across.

Marie
------------------
You'll get a nice taste of him "Angels and Insects". He is not at
all histrionic, but can be very intense, while being very quiet.
He's good at observing and at making the act of observing involving;
also good at eliciting sympathy. His role in "Angels and Insects"
is of a 19th century explorer to South America back in Britain after
a ship wreck which has ruined him financially. He becomes deeply
involved with the rather strange family who supports his efforts,
falling in love with the daughter of the house, and in deep conflict
with the brother of the house. The role calls for a man of action,
passion harshly restrained, and of intellectual capacity, and Ryland
is, for me, successful at conveying this. The film itself is very
odd, and is based on an odd book by Anne Byatt, but I recommend it,
if only for Rylance but also for some very strong images which stay
with you (or they stayed with me, anyway!).

Anna Massey is in this film, too. I like her very much, though she
has more room to play in a broadcast of "Mansfield Park" where she
enjoys herself as Aunt Norwood. She might make an interesting older
Cecily.

Maria
elena@...

At 17:07 27/01/2004, you wrote:
>I agree that a lot of Tom Cruise's films lack intelligence, which
>perhaps in itself suggests lack of judgement. As does the ending of
>The Last Samurai. However, I don't know whether he's really thick. I
>believe he did actually direct The Last Samurai, and I would say
>that, apart from that ending, he made a damn good job of it. I
>suspect he's one of those people who's underrated because he's a
>pretty boy, and also because he is unpopular for dumping Nicole
>Kidman. I've never heard him try a non-American accent, but his
>Japanese sounded good. I do have my doubts about his ability to
>tackle Richard, though.


I've heard him tackle a non-American accent. What was allegedly a dramatic
film became a farce in Ireland, audiences were laughing so hard at an
abysmal plot and an even more abysmal performance from Cruise.

Cruise can act - like many medium-range actors, he can be superb in the
right role but absolutely terrible if he's miscast. But I do not believe
he's convincing casting as a non-American historical figure.

Cruise didn't direct Last Samurai, btw, Edward Zwick did. And considering
he also did Glory, if he could be urged to head a few more centuries back
in time, he could be a superb director for a Richard III film.

> > . Rylance is also a superb Shakespearean which means he's good at
>the *
> > dramatic*, something Richard himself was good at.
>
>Not sure what you mean? Good at serious dramatic roles? Or good at
>putting on the dramatics? If the former, then great. However, I don't
>see Richard as a dramatic personality in the drama-queen sense.


Good at serious dramatic roles and has that sense of presence that he can
pull off histrionic roles without looking daft. I don't mean that Richard
would be a histrionic role, but there are certain elements of a good
showman that I think would be characteristic of Richard - and it's very
tough for someone to do that convincingly.

For example, turning around from arranging his nephew's coronation to
declaring him a bastard - that's a toughie to pull off convincingly, yet
the historical Richard seems to have managed just that. Not an easy thing
for anyone to manage, and it argues that Richard had a certain dramatic
aspect to his character that made him a sympathetic public speaker.

You also need an actor with a superb range, purely because you're fighting
against the most famous public perception of Richard - Shakespeare's. Not
only that, it's a role that most actors are *gagging* to get their teeth
into, simply because playing an out and out villain is *fun*.

Richard had *something* that made him a rather popular man. Public opinion
rarely likes an uptight, boring prude who's into maintaining peace and
prosperity, yet Richard appears to have managed that - to have had a
reputation for integrity and honesty - and to be well spoken of by people.

Jenny

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > . Rylance is also a superb Shakespearean which means he's good at
> the *
> > dramatic*, something Richard himself was good at.
>
> Not sure what you mean? Good at serious dramatic roles? Or good at
> putting on the dramatics? If the former, then great. However, I
don't
> see Richard as a dramatic personality in the drama-queen sense. The
> notion that he put on the dramatics arose from the Tudor
> interpretation that his religiousness and concern for the people's
> welfare were all a cynical act. I evidently don't believe that, and
I
> don't think many people do any more. I would suggest that had
Richard
> been a better actor he might have won people over more easily. I
see
> him as rather a reserved, earnest character, dependent in summer
1483
> on Buckingham's histrionics. I imagine that scene in the hall of
the
> Knights of St John as incredibly painful and embarassing to watch


Wasn't there a letter by Norfolk (John Howard) saying in essence that
he wanted to go home for the winter festivities, but "old Dick"
wanted to keep working. Since Norfolk was older than Richard, that
sounds like he was inferring that Richard was the work more, play
less sort.

Katy

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:

> Good at serious dramatic roles and has that sense of presence that
he can
> pull off histrionic roles without looking daft. I don't mean that
Richard
> would be a histrionic role, but there are certain elements of a
good
> showman that I think would be characteristic of Richard - and it's
very
> tough for someone to do that convincingly.
>
> For example, turning around from arranging his nephew's coronation
to
> declaring him a bastard - that's a toughie to pull off
convincingly, yet
> the historical Richard seems to have managed just that. Not an easy
thing
> for anyone to manage, and it argues that Richard had a certain
dramatic
> aspect to his character that made him a sympathetic public speaker.
>
> You also need an actor with a superb range, purely because you're
fighting
> against the most famous public perception of Richard -
Shakespeare's. Not
> only that, it's a role that most actors are *gagging* to get their
teeth
> into, simply because playing an out and out villain is *fun*.
>
> Richard had *something* that made him a rather popular man. Public
opinion
> rarely likes an uptight, boring prude who's into maintaining peace
and
> prosperity, yet Richard appears to have managed that - to have had
a
> reputation for integrity and honesty - and to be well spoken of by
people.
>
> Jenny

Another indication that Richard must have had a forceful personality
is (if the anecdote is true) the business at Stony Stratford when he
tells young Edward to get down off his horse, and Edward does. I've
always thought that was a turning point of a sort and that if Edward
had had more royal backbone and refused, he might have seemed more
kingly to onlookers and maybe to Richard himself.

Katy

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 17:07 27/01/2004, you wrote:
> >I agree that a lot of Tom Cruise's films lack intelligence, which
> >perhaps in itself suggests lack of judgement. As does the ending of
> >The Last Samurai. However, I don't know whether he's really thick.
I
> >believe he did actually direct The Last Samurai, and I would say
> >that, apart from that ending, he made a damn good job of it. I
> >suspect he's one of those people who's underrated because he's a
> >pretty boy, and also because he is unpopular for dumping Nicole
> >Kidman. I've never heard him try a non-American accent, but his
> >Japanese sounded good. I do have my doubts about his ability to
> >tackle Richard, though.
>
>
> I've heard him tackle a non-American accent. What was allegedly a
dramatic
> film became a farce in Ireland, audiences were laughing so hard at
an
> abysmal plot and an even more abysmal performance from Cruise.
>
> Cruise can act - like many medium-range actors, he can be superb in
the
> right role but absolutely terrible if he's miscast. But I do not
believe
> he's convincing casting as a non-American historical figure.

Sounds like that rules him out then.

>
> Cruise didn't direct Last Samurai, btw, Edward Zwick did.

Thanks. I was only repeating what I was told by my son, who was
absolutely sure Tom Cruise directed. I was incredulous to start with,
but he insisted and then my husband joined in. I've just checked on
the web and you're absolutely right. So I'll tell them.



And considering
> he also did Glory, if he could be urged to head a few more
centuries back
> in time, he could be a superb director for a Richard III film.

I absolutely agree. I was thinking, watching that final battle - oh!
for a Bosworth like this.

Only could EZ be dissuaded from having Richard survive the battle,
get well, give Henry Tudor a pep talk on how to be a good king, and
then disappear off to permanent retirement in a holiday cottage in
the Lake District?

>
> > > . Rylance is also a superb Shakespearean which means he's good
at
> >the *
> > > dramatic*, something Richard himself was good at.
> >
> >Not sure what you mean? Good at serious dramatic roles? Or good at
> >putting on the dramatics? If the former, then great. However, I
don't
> >see Richard as a dramatic personality in the drama-queen sense.
>
>
> Good at serious dramatic roles and has that sense of presence that
he can
> pull off histrionic roles without looking daft. I don't mean that
Richard
> would be a histrionic role, but there are certain elements of a
good
> showman that I think would be characteristic of Richard - and it's
very
> tough for someone to do that convincingly.
>
> For example, turning around from arranging his nephew's coronation
to
> declaring him a bastard - that's a toughie to pull off
convincingly, yet
> the historical Richard seems to have managed just that. Not an easy
thing
> for anyone to manage, and it argues that Richard had a certain
dramatic
> aspect to his character that made him a sympathetic public speaker.

I wouldn't use the word showmanship myself. I suggest he was
convincing because a natural speaking ability was allied to
intelligence, sincerity and a natural authority. And he could be
affable with the crowds - that man in York who compained he did
nothing but grin at them. And he also had a sense of ritual. And
loads of energy - the amount of work he got through as king was
phenomenal, and his sense of direction with it all, of what needed to
be done, is very clear.
But not showmanship. We may be using the word in different senses,
but to me a showman is someone who is putting on an act, playing the
public in a cynical, egotistical sort of way. A manipulator. Like
Buckingham.
>
> You also need an actor with a superb range, purely because you're
fighting
> against the most famous public perception of Richard -
Shakespeare's. Not
> only that, it's a role that most actors are *gagging* to get their
teeth
> into, simply because playing an out and out villain is *fun*.
>
> Richard had *something* that made him a rather popular man. Public
opinion
> rarely likes an uptight, boring prude who's into maintaining peace
and
> prosperity, yet Richard appears to have managed that - to have had
a
> reputation for integrity and honesty - and to be well spoken of by
people.


Not by all. He never really made it with the south in general. He was
certainly popular in the north - but even there it seems to have been
the people who knew him personally who liked him best. He seems to
have been well regarded in London in 1483, but if Mancini is to be
believed it was precisely because people believed in his probity and
his ability to take them through dangerous times. I am not saying he
was an uptight, boring prude. However, there was an element of these
things in his make-up. I find it interesting that you almost suggest
a contradition between having a reputation for honesty and integrity
and being well-liked. People had had their media star in Edward, and
he had badly let them down. The country was in a very bad state in
1483, and people really wanted - and needed - a change. Dare I say
it, they would be looking for someone they could trust to do some
good hard work.
Bear in mind most people in the country would never have seen him,
and even fewer would have heard him speak.

Can Rylance ride? And can he do dry humour?

Marie

> --- In , Jennifer Delaney
> <clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> Only could EZ be dissuaded from having Richard survive the battle,
> get well, give Henry Tudor a pep talk on how to be a good king, and
> then disappear off to permanent retirement in a holiday cottage in
> the Lake District?

Oh yes. The charge in Glory is magnificent and Zwick not only handles
death well, he handles the concept of "glorious death" superbly.


> But not showmanship. We may be using the word in different senses,
> but to me a showman is someone who is putting on an act, playing the

> public in a cynical, egotistical sort of way. A manipulator.

Yep, you're right, we are using the words in different ways. I suppose
what I mean is charisma, but *that's* a word I use very cautiously
since I rarely think of the word in the same context that most people
do.

Let's use the Pratchettian "krisma", shall we? *g* Richard definitely
had it at times.

Jenny

--

>
> My own feeling is that Richard would have spoken the 15th century
> equivalent of standard English, but with some measure of a
northern
> accent, and possibly the odd Yorkshire term when being less
formal.

Possibly something only northerners would really understand today in
general. Rather like some English have trouble with Taggart episodes
for that reason!
>
> I would vote against Antonio Banderas. Wrong sort of face AND
wrong
> accent.

Oh the accent would be dreadful, but he is great at brooding and not
very big, and has dark hair....As I don't watch many films I don't
know that many actors to refer to!

> I don't think we need worry about dark hair and stuff, just facial
> shape, general build & eye colour. Have you ever seen Viggo
Mortensen
> when he's not being Aragorn?

No, I don't have a clue what he really looks like. I had never heard
of him before and have only seen him the once, but am not convinced
he's right, makeup or not. Dishy, though....

Not dark, and not NEARLY so good-
> looking. It's amazing what the make-up department can do. We need
to
> stick to the idea of an actor of the right calibre who is not too
> tall, a slim wiry build and grey/green/blue eyes. I also don't
know
> whether Richard was handsome. The Society of Atiquaries Richard
> definitely isn't (to my mind), but the NPG/Windsor Richard is.
Now, I
> know those are a lot later, but I'm not convinced they are copies
of
> the same original as the Soc. Ant. portrait.
> I don't know whether Viggo Mortensen could do Richard. His accent
did
> tend to keep slipping in Lord of the Rings, but perhaps the
solution
> would be to give him a mild Yorkshire accent. He might find that
less
> likely to slip into American than the southern English diphthongs.

If he does enough films with Sean he may find that quite easy to
master!


> After all, he speaks Danish and Spanish (as well as Elvish!) so
can
> do the purer vowel sounds fine. I wouldn't have a problem with his
> age in a film that just concentrated on the last part of Richard's
> life. All the portraits of Richard show him as more lined and
> careworn than one would expect for his age, and I'm not convinced
> this is mere Tudor tampering to try to make him look scowly, as is
> sometimes suggested. Whether Viggo can do the brooding I'm not
sure,
> but I think he actually has a good reputation as an actor and he
> certainly goes to town as regards getting himself into character.
> What I liked in Lord of the Rings was how much he could get across
> without either speaking or over-acting - very important in a role
> like this. And he's by all accounts a brilliant swordsman and
rider.
> I wouldn't want a Richard who had to have stunt doubles for all
that -
> it wouldn't feel real.
>
> Which is why I also suggested Tom Cruise. He's the right sort of
> build, a good actor, rides and can also wield a weapon. And I
think
> he would identify very easily with the intensity of Richard's
> religious life - he's very much that way himself, and has
apparently
> now taken up the Samurai code for real (if magazine I read in
> doctor's is to be believed). However, it's not his normal thing
and I
> just don't know.

You are probably right but I simply LOATHE Tom Cruise and
desperately wouldn't want him in the role....
>
> Marie
>
> PS I'm also against Catherine Zeta Jones for Elizabeth Woodville.
> Wrong sort of beauty. It would be lovely to find someone with that
> distinctive teardrop-shaped face - someone very cool looking. I
can't
> think of anybody around at the moment.

That's the only reason I thought of her, as I couldn't come up with
what I really wanted. And since when did cinema pay much heed to
truth? If it was towards 1485 I dis wonder about the girl from
Shakespeare in love except she's not that beautiful...


Again, it would depend on when
> the film was set, but if it concentrated on 1483-5 you would want
> someone a bit middle-aged looking, particularly if the Richard
actor
> was getting on a bit himself.
>
> Ah me! Wouldn't it be nice if there were actually a film, and
> somebody was really asking us for our opinions?

Nice fantasy. B
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Personals
> > - New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!
> >
> >

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > My own feeling is that Richard would have spoken the 15th
century
> > equivalent of standard English, but with some measure of a
> northern
> > accent, and possibly the odd Yorkshire term when being less
> formal.
>
> Possibly something only northerners would really understand today
in
> general. Rather like some English have trouble with Taggart
episodes
> for that reason!
>

Taggart is actually fairly refined by Glasgow standards, just as the
Geordie spoken on Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is but a pale imitation of
the real thing (which is quite impenetrable until you get tuned into
it). When I was in the Territorial Army, I well remember our
Regimental Sergeant Major, a very geordie Geordie, was asked what
his subordinates called him when he was playing football with them.
'Aal the lads caall us Bortie,' says he, (translation, 'All the lads
call me Bertie - in Geordie, us is singular; if you want to say 'us'
or 'our' the word is wor). When I ran into him again a couple of
years ago, he was by then a retired Major and the Geordie had
moderated a good bit - he called himself Bertie - so an individual's
accent can change according to time and circumstances.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My own feeling is that Richard would have spoken the 15th
> century
> > > equivalent of standard English, but with some measure of a
> > northern
> > > accent, and possibly the odd Yorkshire term when being less
> > formal.
> >
> > Possibly something only northerners would really understand today
> in
> > general. Rather like some English have trouble with Taggart
> episodes
> > for that reason!
> >
>
> Taggart is actually fairly refined by Glasgow standards, just as
the
> Geordie spoken on Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is but a pale imitation of
> the real thing (which is quite impenetrable until you get tuned
into
> it). When I was in the Territorial Army, I well remember our
> Regimental Sergeant Major, a very geordie Geordie, was asked what
> his subordinates called him when he was playing football with them.
> 'Aal the lads caall us Bortie,' says he, (translation, 'All the
lads
> call me Bertie - in Geordie, us is singular; if you want to
say 'us'
> or 'our' the word is wor). When I ran into him again a couple of
> years ago, he was by then a retired Major and the Geordie had
> moderated a good bit - he called himself Bertie - so an
individual's
> accent can change according to time and circumstances.
>
> Ann

Ah, that takes me back to my days on teaching practice in Durham - or
should I say my days in Durham, on teaching practice in Peterlee &
Birtley? All you get on Auf Wiedersehn Pet is Geordie accent, no
dialect at all. Somebody with an accent as thick as Jimmy Nail's,
particularly in the '70s, would never have said "don't" -
it's "divn't"!
"Can Ah gan yem noo, Miss?" (desired response: "why aye, lad").
For those in need of trannie: "Can I go home now, Miss?" Certainly,
little boy."
Balls (and pupils) were stotted, not bounced. Paper was hoyed rather
than thrown.
And if you ventured into the wilds of Northumberland, you could still
hear the uvular "r".
It was actually the history teacher who told the story of his broad
Geordie mother conversing happily with Danish houseguest - she in
Geordie & he in Danish.

Marie

PS. "It's jeea, Miss, Not jee" (when spelling name). (Translates into
English as: "Its J, Miss, not G".) Poor Miss! Having finally adapted,
went back south and wrote down little cockney Darrel Swain as "Darrel
Swine".
He was, too.

Which is why I also suggested Tom Cruise. He's the right sort of
build, a good actor, rides and can also wield a weapon. And I think
he would identify very easily with the intensity of Richard's
religious life - he's very much that way himself, and has apparently
now taken up the Samurai code for real (if magazine I read in
doctor's is to be believed). However, it's not his normal thing and I
just don't know.

Marie
-----------------------------------
I never could get into Tom Cruise: he feels self-conscious to me as an actor, and his looks aren't particularly outstanding to me either way. As a general rule, I prefer an actor like Johnny Depp or Gary Oldman (not necessarily for any role in "this movie", just in general), or an actor like Tom Hanks, Michael Keaton, and now Bill Murray, noted for comedy but able to stretch into other areas (I haven't seen "Lost in Translation", but we bought a DVD of "Cradle Will Rock", and Murray was excellent).

Maria
elena@...

Marie

Ah, the pure poetry of Geordie speech. I spent about 12 years in the
north-east in all; three years as a student at Newcastle, then,
after a year at York, two years at Durham (1982-84 - when were you
there?), another gap and then seven years living in North Shields
and variously studying and working in Newcastle.

The Sixth Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (6RRF) in which
I spent a year as the only female (indeed, only the second lady
fusilier - after a remarkable 18th century lady named Phoebe Hessle
who disguised herself as a man!) had some exceedingly geordie
Geordies, notably our Signals Warrant Officer, whose dialect was the
most impenetrable I've ever heard (we never had to worry about the
Russian spy trawlers in the North Sea when he was on the air!).

Some of them were exceedingly tough cookies; one chap, who really
had a face you could split rocks on, asked me where I lived in
Durham. 'Opposite the jail,' says I (one of the postgrad houses in
Old Elvet). 'Ah,', he says meditatively, 'I had two your [years to
the uninitiated] in Durham Jail.' At the same time, some were really
quite sweet in the way they tried not to swear in my hearing. One
exceedingly cold night we were on exercise at Otterburn, and I had
to get up in the very small hours to go on watch in Battalion
Headquarters. In the field we rarely used tents and would just bed
down on the ground in a sleeping bag with a groundsheet wrapped
round it. When it was cold you burrowed right down as far as you
could get with your beret on and your head right in side. Going to
BHQ on this cold dark night, I tripped over someone in his sleeping
bag (dark green and colloquially known as a maggot), heard him say
something muffled and unintelligibly, said, 'Sorry, I didn't see
you,' and forgot all about it. Next morning, a painfully embarrassed
fusilier came to see me to apologise profusely for swearing at me
when I trod on his head (in army boots, of course!)
>
> Ah, that takes me back to my days on teaching practice in Durham -
or
> should I say my days in Durham, on teaching practice in Peterlee &
> Birtley? All you get on Auf Wiedersehn Pet is Geordie accent, no
> dialect at all. Somebody with an accent as thick as Jimmy Nail's,
> particularly in the '70s, would never have said "don't" -
> it's "divn't"!
> "Can Ah gan yem noo, Miss?" (desired response: "why aye, lad").
> For those in need of trannie: "Can I go home now, Miss?"
Certainly,
> little boy."
> Balls (and pupils) were stotted, not bounced. Paper was hoyed
rather
> than thrown.
> And if you ventured into the wilds of Northumberland, you could
still
> hear the uvular "r".
> It was actually the history teacher who told the story of his
broad
> Geordie mother conversing happily with Danish houseguest - she in
> Geordie & he in Danish.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. "It's jeea, Miss, Not jee" (when spelling name). (Translates
into
> English as: "Its J, Miss, not G".) Poor Miss! Having finally
adapted,
> went back south and wrote down little cockney Darrel Swain
as "Darrel
> Swine".
> He was, too.

> -----------------------------------
> I never could get into Tom Cruise: he feels self-conscious to me as
> an actor, and his looks aren't particularly outstanding to me either
> way. As a general rule, I prefer an actor like Johnny Depp or Gary
> Oldman (not necessarily for any role in "this movie", just in
> general), or an actor like Tom Hanks, Michael Keaton, and now Bill
> Murray, noted for comedy but able to stretch into other areas (I
> haven't seen "Lost in Translation", but we bought a DVD of "Cradle
> Will Rock", and Murray was excellent).
> Maria
> elena@...

Murray- a well-known partisan of my Chicago Cubs- walked around the field
openly stuffing money into the pockets of the umpires before the decisive
game of the National League playoffs last year. Fortunately, they were
amused. Too bad the bribe wasn't bigger. :(

-- Bob Waters


>
>
--
Bob Waters
bobwaters@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free

Murray- a well-known partisan of my Chicago Cubs- walked around the
field openly stuffing money into the pockets of the umpires before
the decisive game of the National League playoffs last year.
Fortunately, they were amused. Too bad the bribe wasn't bigger. :(

-- Bob Waters
------------------------------------------
Well, you can't blame a comedian for trying!

You have my sympathies: my own favorite baseball team is the very
long defunct Brooklyn Dodgers, whose motto, as you probably know,
was "Wait till next year".

Maria
elena@...

aelyon2001 <[email protected]> wrote:

Durham. 'Opposite the jail,' says I (one of the postgrad houses in
Old Elvet).




I hope this doesn't sound strange but I wonder which house you lived in Old Elvet. I am asking this because my great grandfather in the nineteenth century lived in Old Elvet at No 32. When I visited there a few years ago that house had been quite rehashed so I got little idea how it would have been in his day.

Helen




---------------------------------


Yahoo! Groups Links


To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Greetings
Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!

Not strange at all! It was No.34 - I can't remember whether that
woould be next door or next door but one. Certainly in the same
terrace. As I remember it was a tall narrow house - three floors and
3-4 student rooms to a floor, with part of each landing turned into
a tiny kitchen (fridge, sink and Baby Belling). Some other houses in
the same part of Old Elvet were used by the university - one was the
Student Health Centre, another the Anthropology Department. I can
try to remember a bit more and e-mail you about it off-list.

That was in my second year at Durham. In my first year I lived in
Parson's Field House, which was a purpose-built place for post grads
behind the Magistrates' Courts, which were at the end of Old Elvet
as you went away from the city centre.

Ann
>
>
>
> I hope this doesn't sound strange but I wonder which house you
lived in Old Elvet. I am asking this because my great grandfather in
the nineteenth century lived in Old Elvet at No 32. When I visited
there a few years ago that house had been quite rehashed so I got
little idea how it would have been in his day.
>
> Helen
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Greetings
> Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
>
>

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> Ah, the pure poetry of Geordie speech. I spent about 12 years in
the
> north-east in all; three years as a student at Newcastle, then,
> after a year at York, two years at Durham (1982-84 - when were you
> there?),

1974-75. Not very long, but I just felt at home in Durham as I never
have anywhere else. I still have a recurring dream about going back
to visit. I have actually been back a few times. My niece has been a
student there since, and my son had a late offer of a place at
University College, so we got shown round the castle on our own. But
he felt it was no use as the castle's not wired up for internet
access!
Somehow or other I've ended up in the north-west, so it's easy for me
to take advantage of the annual Society study weekends in York.
York's very lovely too, and has a great atmosphere, but so packed
with OTHER tourists (aren't other tourists a pain?); also there's
just something about the site of Durham, the cathedral & castle at
the top of the rock, with the river winding round, and no development
down by the river, just the water below on one side, the bedrock &
the city wall rising up on the other, and a quiet path and the trees.
I used to come in by train in the old days, where you get that famous
view of the city as you cross the viaduct. Ah me!


another gap and then seven years living in North Shields
> and variously studying and working in Newcastle.
>
> The Sixth Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (6RRF) in which
> I spent a year as the only female (indeed, only the second lady
> fusilier - after a remarkable 18th century lady named Phoebe Hessle
> who disguised herself as a man!) had some exceedingly geordie
> Geordies, notably our Signals Warrant Officer, whose dialect was
the
> most impenetrable I've ever heard (we never had to worry about the
> Russian spy trawlers in the North Sea when he was on the air!).
>
> Some of them were exceedingly tough cookies; one chap, who really
> had a face you could split rocks on, asked me where I lived in
> Durham. 'Opposite the jail,' says I (one of the postgrad houses in
> Old Elvet).

Ah! Old Elvet! The Education Department was based there, so I had all
my seminars & tutorials there. I stopped over in one of the postgrad
houses when I came up for my interview.
Small world, isn't it?

Marie

Hello

Can I join in this Durham-fest? I'm in the NE too, about half hour from Durham and might well be moving there next month. I still can't get over how musical the accent is and the richness of the dialect.

Shelagh

> Somehow or other I've ended up in the north-west, so it's easy for
me
> to take advantage of the annual Society study weekends in York.
> York's very lovely too, and has a great atmosphere, but so packed
> with OTHER tourists (aren't other tourists a pain.

Getting yet more off-topic, whereabouts in the north-west? My father
is from Liverpool, my mother from Wallasey, and they settled on the
Wirral in 1978 just as I went to university (we've both given away
our ages now!) I was born in Wallasey but only spent about the first
eight weeks of my life there. About a month before I was due to
arrive my father was sent on a course at short notice on a station
where no married quarters were available and so my mother took
refuge with my grandmother until things calmed down.

Regarding your remarks about phonetic spelling of Geordie names,
when I first encountered the former denizen of Durham jail, and
asked him his name, he repled, 'Fusilier Horman', and for quite a
time I went round referring to him as Fusilier Harman until I saw
his name in writing - it was Fusilier Hawman!

Ann

--- In , "Shelagh"
<leapint@b...> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Can I join in this Durham-fest? I'm in the NE too, about half
hour from Durham and might well be moving there next month. I still
can't get over how musical the accent is and the richness of the
dialect.
>
> Shelagh


Fine by me.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > Somehow or other I've ended up in the north-west, so it's easy
for
> me
> > to take advantage of the annual Society study weekends in York.
> > York's very lovely too, and has a great atmosphere, but so packed
> > with OTHER tourists (aren't other tourists a pain.
>
> Getting yet more off-topic, whereabouts in the north-west? My
father
> is from Liverpool, my mother from Wallasey, and they settled on the
> Wirral in 1978 just as I went to university (we've both given away
> our ages now!)

Don't talk to me about age! I'm seriously considering becoming an Elf.


I was born in Wallasey but only spent about the first
> eight weeks of my life there. About a month before I was due to
> arrive my father was sent on a course at short notice on a station
> where no married quarters were available and so my mother took
> refuge with my grandmother until things calmed down.

I'm in north Cheshire, between Warrington & Knutsford (see, another
battle site [joke]). Funnily enough, although so far as I knew my
family had no connnections at all with the area, being all Irish &
southern English, when I looked into the family history I found my
grandmother's father had actually spent half his childhood in Chirk.
Although he went south again, to join the Guards, six of his eight
siblings headed for the Wirral, and most stayed in that area. Gt-gt
uncle Albert Owen married in Wallasey & at one point lived in
Warrington about 5 doors from the dancewear shop where my daughter
gets all her stuff. He ended up in Everton so far as I can tell.
Another brother, Charles, was a licensed victualler somewhere in the
Liverpool area, and two more brothers and a sister lived in & around
Liscard. Then their children started to spread out - I found one in
Altrincham in 1901, just the other side of us. So it occurs to me
that I'm probably surrounded by a number of unknown distant cousins.
You never know, we might even be related. . . .

Marie

>
> I'm in north Cheshire, between Warrington & Knutsford (see,
another
> battle site [joke]). Funnily enough, although so far as I knew my
> family had no connnections at all with the area, being all Irish &
> southern English, when I looked into the family history I found my
> grandmother's father had actually spent half his childhood in
Chirk.
> Although he went south again, to join the Guards, six of his eight
> siblings headed for the Wirral, and most stayed in that area. Gt-
gt
> uncle Albert Owen married in Wallasey & at one point lived in
> Warrington about 5 doors from the dancewear shop where my daughter
> gets all her stuff. He ended up in Everton so far as I can tell.
> Another brother, Charles, was a licensed victualler somewhere in
the
> Liverpool area, and two more brothers and a sister lived in &
around
> Liscard. Then their children started to spread out - I found one
in
> Altrincham in 1901, just the other side of us. So it occurs to me
> that I'm probably surrounded by a number of unknown distant
cousins.
> You never know, we might even be related. . . .


Marie

It's always possible, but any link would have to be on my father's
side, as my maternal grandparents were incomers to Wallasey - my
grandmother was originally from Devon and my grandfather from
Nottingham via Canada. They settled in Wallasey on their marriage in
1919, my grandfather having come out of the army and got a job with
the Inland Revenue in Liverpool. From the time my mother was seven
until my grandmother, by then widowed, moved to Higher Bebington in
1960, they lived in Liscard.

By contrast, my father is a 'proper' Liverpudlian (by birth and
blood at least - he is quite unlike the stereotypical Scouser). The
Lyons seem to have been in Liverpool as far back as we can trace
them (late 18th century) and Dad's mother's family came originally
from Westhoughton, near Bolton, but moved to Liverpool in the 1850s.
Dad's paternal grandmother came originally from a tiny hamlet called
Bridekirk, not far from Cockermouth in Cumberland. Anybody who is in
the area must go to the church there, which has a superb 12th
century font carved with Scandinavian-style figures and interlace.
As a historian it is wonderful for me to be able to think that MY
great-granny was baptised in THAT - unless she was a fragile infant
and baptised at home as a rush job, as was my mother.

I have e-mailed you off-list about a private matter, in case you
haven't checked your yahoo mail recently.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in north Cheshire, between Warrington & Knutsford (see,
> another
> > battle site [joke]). Funnily enough, although so far as I knew my
> > family had no connnections at all with the area, being all Irish
&
> > southern English, when I looked into the family history I found
my
> > grandmother's father had actually spent half his childhood in
> Chirk.
> > Although he went south again, to join the Guards, six of his
eight
> > siblings headed for the Wirral, and most stayed in that area. Gt-
> gt
> > uncle Albert Owen married in Wallasey & at one point lived in
> > Warrington about 5 doors from the dancewear shop where my
daughter
> > gets all her stuff. He ended up in Everton so far as I can tell.
> > Another brother, Charles, was a licensed victualler somewhere in
> the
> > Liverpool area, and two more brothers and a sister lived in &
> around
> > Liscard. Then their children started to spread out - I found one
> in
> > Altrincham in 1901, just the other side of us. So it occurs to me
> > that I'm probably surrounded by a number of unknown distant
> cousins.
> > You never know, we might even be related. . . .
>
>
> Marie
>
> It's always possible, but any link would have to be on my father's
> side, as my maternal grandparents were incomers to Wallasey - my
> grandmother was originally from Devon and my grandfather from
> Nottingham via Canada. They settled in Wallasey on their marriage
in
> 1919, my grandfather having come out of the army and got a job with
> the Inland Revenue in Liverpool. From the time my mother was seven
> until my grandmother, by then widowed, moved to Higher Bebington in
> 1960, they lived in Liscard.
>
> By contrast, my father is a 'proper' Liverpudlian (by birth and
> blood at least - he is quite unlike the stereotypical Scouser). The
> Lyons seem to have been in Liverpool as far back as we can trace
> them (late 18th century) and Dad's mother's family came originally
> from Westhoughton, near Bolton, but moved to Liverpool in the
1850s.
> Dad's paternal grandmother came originally from a tiny hamlet
called
> Bridekirk, not far from Cockermouth in Cumberland. Anybody who is
in
> the area must go to the church there, which has a superb 12th
> century font carved with Scandinavian-style figures and interlace.
> As a historian it is wonderful for me to be able to think that MY
> great-granny was baptised in THAT - unless she was a fragile infant
> and baptised at home as a rush job, as was my mother.
>
> I have e-mailed you off-list about a private matter, in case you
> haven't checked your yahoo mail recently.
>
> Ann

I got your email a couple of days ago, and replied straight off. I
have resent the reply so, if you don't hear, let me know. My email
has been misbehaving lately.

Also to Katy, I got your email wanting to know if I'd got your
previous two (which I hadn't), and I replied to that too, so again
let me know if it didn't come.

Marie