Time Gentlemen! To Begin To Discuss Oct Queries

[Moderator]

Dear Tracy -

Welcome. And have not Tom's answers, so far this month, been superb? Keep up the good work, Tom!

Best,
Dirk

[pattie anne]

dear folks and dirk -

indeed!

and i know jaybee and tracy especially will be happy with TOM's reply to the Bella question.

"good shew!"
ed sullivan

"very, very good 'shew', master."
K9

and best of all ... it ain't over yet!

'moore' 'moore' 'moore' -- author! author!

love,
pattie anne

[tracy]

yes ive just been reading toms answers to the kittys im glad they are all doing well and it sounds like the one tom and sue have kept are going to keep tom and sue on there feet.love the answers to the other questions to thank you tom

[The Cloaked One]

Death is quite a topic, but not one I spend too much time contemplating. For me, 18 years has seemed an incredibly long time to reach, and do excuse my lack of experience, and age, but 50 is only the half way point. 75 is around the 3/4 mark. Tom Baker still has as many years of vigor and strength as he should chooses to have. I can only relate to members of my family and others I have seen who have not lost strength or given up stride in any sense of the word even into their nineties. Tom Baker has shown his strength every time he has gone down to the studio to play the Doctor or any other roll he has fancied. He still has his wit, his charm, and a great many years to inspire yet another generation.

[jaybee]

Well said, The Cloaked One. And, spot on as well! They say that you're only as old as you think you are. I suspect that Tom's idea of how old he is has constantly been shot down by his robustness (is that a word?). His actions don't jibe with his words on the subject of his age.

I kind of figured that he and Sue would hang on to at least one or two of Bella's kittens. And I'm glad they've had her spayed.

I also quite liked his veiled reference to "queens" he's met. Gave me the giggles.

[Marcello Cristiano]

Hi Cloaked One. I totally agree with you. I'm very ecstatic that a new generation will be exposed to the magic that is TOM thru 'Hornet's Nest' and 'Demon Quest'. They will no doubt inspire the minds of a new generation into seeing TOM's run on T.V. from 1974-1981. I hope they have fun on that magic carpet that I once went on and am still going on to BAKERite paradise.

[Moderator]

Dear donnarose -

Liked your question to Tom.

I enjoy the Shakespeare plays when they set them in different eras. I remember especially seeing "The Merchant of Venice," dressed in 'The Victorian age', on television, and enjoyed it very much. However, I do like the costumes and settings of The Bard's era too. And isn't "West Side Story," just "Romeo and Juliet," in modern garb and vernacular?

Best,
Dirk

[donnarose]

Hi, Dirk.

It is my understanding that "West Side Story" is a modern interpretation of "Romeo and Juliet," not only set in the 1950s but also turned into a musical.

I have not seen much Shakespeare onstage unless it was a play performed by a local theatre company. When I've read the plays with my daughters, I would usually rent the older versions of the movies (such as Orson Welles or Sir Laurence Olivier as Macbeth; Marlon Brando as Marc Antony in "Julius Caesar"--the classic movies) as I felt the actors in the older films actually were able to act.

Not to cast aspersions on the younger actors who undertook the roles, but I have not found until recently the younger actors who could grasp the roles such as David Tennant in Hamlet. I understand that John Simm recently undertook the same role--I would have loved to see him in it!

Of course, the versions I saw recently with Sir Patrick Stewart as Macbeth and David Tennant as Hamlet were very good productions from the Royal Shakespeare Company. As my youngest says, "That's why it's called 'The Royal Shakespeare Company--they know how to perform Shakespeare.'"

I do recommend Sir Patrick Stewart's recent film version if you haven't seen it. It's set in a communist-like country and lends itself very well to the play.

Yesterday we took a break and watched Ian Mckellen and Dame Judy Dench in a late 70s production of "Macbeth."
That one was interesting as it had no scenery. It was very well done, but again, it was a production by The Royal Shakespeare Company.

Sorry if this is TMI. I'll get off my teacher's soapbox now.

[Moderator]

Dear donnarose -

Not at all. I know that Tom too, enjoys 'listening in' on these type discussions. Like you, I too have seen Shakespear done on a bare stage. It is a very effective way to communicate ideas. Have also seen "The Night of the Auk," done that way too. Oooh, long time ago that one.

Best,
Dirk

[donnarose]

Dear Dirk,

The bare stage was a very good effect. Of course, this was a film version, and the director was able to make wonderful use of close-ups and juxtaposition of the actors' faces.

It was interesting listening to Ian Mckellen describe the filming. The budget didn't run more than 250 pounds and there were no real costume changes of which to speak. He said that a copy of the film was given to his sister for her to use in a classroom setting. The lights were off, the windows blacked out, and by the end of the film, the students were screaming.

Not very nice to do to students, really, but obviously, it was quite effective in its presentation.

I suppose the students in the UK have more of an appreciation for Shakespeare's works than those here in the US, which is sad. Imho, the directors and actors in the UK have more of a sense of how the roles are to be interpreted and performed.