Why "bravo!" is incorrectly used in musical theater
JIM BARNETT
I would like to set the record straight on the word "Bravo!" if I
may.
The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
performer (usually male). It's supposed to show politeness and humility
to performers on stage....after the conclusion of a musical or play
production.
In Italy, the word is used in the following examples:
"Bravo!" - meaning to only the male performer for his
outstanding performance.
"Brava!" - meaning to only the lead female performer for her
outstanding performance.
"Bravi!" - meaning to all the performers on stage, male or female.
"Brave!" - meaning to only the female performers on stage.
"Bravissimi!," "Bravissime!," "Bravissima!," and "Bravissimo!" are also
used when giving standing ovations.
Well, that's it!
I thought I should clear that up!
It explains why "Bravo!" is butchered in the English language.
Todd
Todd Andrew Barnett: A Composer's Homepage
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/composerTB/index.html
The Entertainment Zone
http://www.serve.com/TAB/
Michelle McFee
Karen Horn wrote:
> Personally, I take a delicious schadenfreude when someone who
> goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
> the female star. Particularly because they have no idea
> they made an egregious faux pas. The theatrical equivalent
> of wandering around with toilet paper on the bottom of one's shoe.
Of course, having studied opera for years, I knew this, but frankly, I
get around the would-be issue by just yelling "woohoo" if a particular
performer merits my recognition! And those woohoos increase in volume
in direct proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed prior to the
curtain call (notice, I didn't say "prior to the show" because some MORE
CIVILIZED establishments allow the audience to take their drinks into
the theatre with them -- after serving them pre-theatre cocktails on the
sidewalk under the marquee, of course.) (could it be {PROVIDENCE of
which I speak?)
michelle
Karen Horn
JIM BARNETT (jbar...@c3net.net) wrote:
:
: The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
: performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
: performer (usually male).
: Todd
True confession:
Personally, I take a delicious schadenfreude when someone who
goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
the female star. Particularly because they have no idea
they made an egregious faux pas. The theatrical equivalent
of wandering around with toilet paper on the bottom of one's shoe.
Karen
Ludlow29
Karen Horn wrote:
> Personally, I take a delicious schadenfreude when someone who
> goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
> the female star.
++++
Karen,
Sorry to disagree with you on this one. True for an opera "Brava" is proper,
particularly if the opera is in Italian. But "Bravo" used in English can
express general approval (without having to classify a gender). Maybe it's
because I almost always hear "Bravos" in theatre, not "Bravas," to my ear
hearing a "Brava" sounds like an affectation. It's sort of like the
expression: "He thinks he's better than I" (When I would say "He thinks he's
better than me.") Yes, literally it's correct. But (to my ear) it's not
commonly used and still sounds like an affectation.
Karen Horn
Ludlow29 (ludl...@aol.com) wrote:
: Sorry to disagree with you on this one. True for an opera "Brava" is proper,
: particularly if the opera is in Italian. But "Bravo" used in English can
: express general approval (without having to classify a gender). Maybe it's
: because I almost always hear "Bravos" in theatre, not "Bravas," to my ear
: hearing a "Brava" sounds like an affectation. It's sort of like the
: expression: "He thinks he's better than I" (When I would say "He thinks he's
: better than me.") Yes, literally it's correct. But (to my ear) it's not
: commonly used and still sounds like an affectation.
Oh, it's the year and a half of Italian I took in college that
makes me think:
Jane, you ignorant slut, it's "brava" not "bravo."
I still semi-cringe when I hear "actor" for "actress."
Hey, next time you're in a theatre and you hear "bravo" where it
should be "brava" look at who's shouting it. Most likely the
guy with nachos stuck in his teeth and toilet paper on his shoe.
Karen
Richard Wall
Karen Horn wrote:
> I still semi-cringe when I hear "actor" for "actress."
I completely agree with you, Karen, but actress is now considered politically
incorrect (ugh!) like waitress, stewardess, etc.
and I do say, "He is better than I."
Sad that we live in a world that is so down-sized that wrong sounds right.
Ugh.
Richard
HugMe Joey
In article <88467976...@wagasa.cts.com>, kah...@king.cts.com (Karen Horn)
writes:
>Hey, next time you're in a theatre and you hear "bravo" where it
should be
>"brava" look at who's shouting it. Most likely the
guy with nachos stuck in
>his teeth and toilet paper on his shoe.
Aw shit man.
Thanks for catching that for me.
; -)
joe
HugMe Joey
In article <34BB2C3D...@mindspring.com>, Richard Wall
<rcw...@mindspring.com> writes:
>I completely agree with you, Karen, but actress is now considered
>politically
incorrect (ugh!) like waitress, stewardess, etc.
Why is that politically incorrect?
You aren't generalizing.
For example....if you call a mail carrier the "mailman", that's politically
incorrect.
But if you're calling a female performer an actress, it's not. Why? Simple.
No one of the mail sex can be called an actress. Now it WOULD be politically
incorrect to call an actress an actor, just as you would never call and actor
an actress.
Make sense?
Hell......who cares? I's 5:30 AM and I just cleand 2 dozen CDs.
joe
Ludlow29
Sad that we live in a world that is so down-sized that wrong sounds right.
Ugh.
Richard
+++++
So tell me, Richard, do you feel bad or do you feel badly when someone makes
such an egregious mistake?
Matthew Winn
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 10:39:18AM +0000, HugMe Joey wrote:
> In article <34BB2C3D...@mindspring.com>, Richard Wall
> <rcw...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >I completely agree with you, Karen, but actress is now considered
> >politically incorrect (ugh!) like waitress, stewardess, etc.
>
> Why is that politically incorrect?
>
> You aren't generalizing.
>
> For example....if you call a mail carrier the "mailman", that's politically
> incorrect.
>
> But if you're calling a female performer an actress, it's not. Why? Simple.
> No one of the mail sex can be called an actress. Now it WOULD be politically
> incorrect to call an actress an actor, just as you would never call and actor
> an actress.
We went through all this a few months ago, didn't we? Wasn't the
general consensus that in acting, just as in prostitution, gender is
significant and so the use of actress as distinct from actor was
acceptable in a way that drawing a distinction between manager and
manageress would not be?
Matthew
Tim McNair
As a devoted audience member, who has never been on the other side of
the footlights, but has supported the arts in my local community with
regular attendance and contributions, it would seem to me that whether
or not what is said is gramatically correct, the audience enjoyed the
performance and is expreessing its appreciation. Isn't that a lot more
important than whether or not they have made a gramatical error???
--
--Tim McNair--
tim...@halcyon.com
Jeremy Whelan
What are teachers doing that is so harmful? Many use a technique I and others condemn known as Emotional Recall. It has been around for so long that questioning it's value has never even come up. For those unaware of how this technique works I will provide a brief description. Emotional Recall is taught through the process of having a teacher ask actors to go to the darkest and most painful moment of their lives, delving deeper and deeper through a series of very specific questions, dragging up every little detail of their worst experience in life. Each detail as it is added takes the actor slowly back to that moment in time. Questions such as the following would not be unusual. When you saw your mother get hit by the truck, did her left eye pop out first or was it the right, did the blood splatter on your shirt? What color was the shirt? Did she say anything to you before she died in your arms? What color was the truck?
This goes on until the actor goes into a complete emotional breakdown. The shattering effects of this exercise are compounded by the fact that it is generally done in front of a room full of strangers commonly know as your peers. Afterward actors are told that whenever they need to look sad for stage or camera, all they have to do is go back to that painful moment. To practice it, work on it until they can get to the complete shock and absolute horror of that moment on a seconds notice, i.e. on cue. Try going through that in a theatrical performance six days a week and twice on Sunday, or weeks or longer on a film.
Many groups of people once accepted emotional abuse as a fact of life, just something that went along with their sex, life style, occupation. In recent years we have come to recognize emotional abuse is as damaging as physical abuse and we, as a society, have taken steps to end it wherever and whenever we could. Students of acting must recognize what is being done to them and refuse to let themselves be emotionally tortured by misguided teachers. They should walk out of any program that attempts such invasive attacks on their emotional privacy. If students would do that, if large chunks of student tuition money starts to go in the direction of more intelligent training programs, administrations will start to investigate the validity of their approach. Whether it happens through an enlightened administration, an indignant student body, or people generally opposed to abusive teaching practices, this technique has to be removed from the classroom.
In a recent article in a leading New Jersey daily, I stated that the acting training process known as emotional recall has killed some actors and emotionally crippled many others. While I can't point to a tombstone or a death certificate which says "Died from emotional recall", I've been in the business for thirty five years and have lost many friends. No wonder so many actors are drunks, drug addicts and for those that can afford it, constantly on some shrinks couch.
I am guilty of having used this technique as an actor and having taught it to students. I even promoted it in my first book; that, however was many years ago and I deeply regret having not questioned it earlier. While someone in therapy with a skilled medical professional might find this sort of severe emotional manipulation useful, it's not right to do this to young acting students.
When an acting student is repeatedly put through this process by an acting teacher with no medical skill, or proper training, the results can and have often been disastrous. Anyone, regardless of their level of competency, can call themselves an acting teacher. No government or private agency of any kind regulates who can teach acting. Sex offenders, predators, mentally unbalanced people of any sort, can put an ad in the paper, call themselves an acting teacher, and begin working with young students. That fact is the hard edge of the problem, on the soft side you have well meaning incompetent teachers and other teachers who have just not kept up with their craft.
The worst part of the situation is that young students are so eager to learn acting, so wide eyed and innocent, that they never question the teacher's process. As sick as it is, a favorite memory of actors/acting students to use in this exercise is the death of someone they loved deeply. I've also heard stories of students using rape by a parent or other traumatic sexual experiences for an emotional recall and then have the teacher use that knowledge to trap the student into having sex with them. Parents don't know what is going on in these classrooms. A girl isn't going to come home and say I told everybody in my acting class today about how daddy raped me when I was seven, every nasty little detail.
While the high schools and colleges have potential to screen teachers, they can't really rule on the competence of every teaching assistant or professor to play fast and loose with a student actors' emotional health. I'm sure some try very hard, others seem not to think. They just accept emotional recall, feeling why should they question it, this is the way it is done, we've always done this, it's Stanislavski for gods sake! It's the Actors Studio for gods sake, it's a very large part of actor training in this country, what do you mean, question it?
We may not be able to stop private teachers from using emotional recall, but we can certainly bar it from our high schools and colleges. Through e-mail and postings to discussion groups on the internet, many actors and teachers have shared their personal tragedy with this technique, or the tragedy of others which they saw or are seeing in classrooms and in the professional world daily. The problem teachers have supporting a revolt against emotional recall comes from the fact that so many of them work in schools where that technique is part of the acting program. It would be very poor politics to buck the system. Academic careers could be destroyed for suggesting that any usefulness emotional recall might have ever had, is long dead. Emotional Recall is an integral part of training at many schools and at the most vaunted and prestigious private actor training institutions. Not many teachers or actors want to go against these juggernauts, too many people from there are powerfully placed in the industry.
In theatre and acting discussion groups on the internet, I have tried to rally support for a class action suit to outlaw the teaching of this technique in any classroom in this country, unless the teacher is a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist.
The fact is that young actors are getting chewed up daily by so called teachers who are not trained in using such a serious medical procedure. Leave therapy to the professionals, and get it out of acting classes.
I've made some very strong statements here and I
fully expect to get flack for having done so. I am challenging some of
the most formidable members of the academic and professional acting community,
many of whom are simply following a very old teaching/acting style.
I know the fate of one who brings bad news to the king, but I truly believe
this is a case of the message being more important than the messenger.
On the other hand, I have complete confidence, that the more responsible
members of the acting community will, upon reflection, see the value of
banning emotional recall and take steps to purge acting programs
of this outdated and destructive technique. I believe that if teachers
don't correct this mistake, students will.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Whelan
http://www.Jeremy-Whelan-Acting.com
The last time I tried to bring this to the attention of the acting community
on the web, I received private and some public response from teachers,
students and actors. Some accused me of blasphemy, of being the anti-Christ.
Others who had suffered or seen others suffer from this archaic,
invasive and abusive practice, told me stories that equaled the worst cases
I'd seen or heard of. If you have such a story and are willing to
share it, I will respect your privacy, but it might help get this important
job done and save others anguish.
Pizzaman95
Do to PC concerns, Bravo, Brava, Barvi, etc.
have been replaced with "I love you person"
P-man
Ee Kuan Low
> and I do say, "He is better than I."
That's because it's correct. "He is better than I" is short for "He is
better than I am" - imagine "He is better than me am" (this one makes me
cringe even when I _think_ of it, let alone verbalise)
Ee Kuan
Ee Kuan Low
> No one of the mail sex can be called an actress
While we're on the subject, I think you mean "male sex", instead of
"mail sex" *grin* - don't want to start mailing genders, do we?
> Hell......who cares? I's 5:30 AM and I just cleand 2 dozen CDs.
I wish you would say "cleaned", instead of "cleand". Don't take it
personally.
Ee Kuan
Sam Ross
I have not seen anything in the past 12 months that would even merit a
standing ovation let alone yelling Bravo or brava!
Sam
On 13 Jan 1998, Karen Horn wrote:
> JIM BARNETT (jbar...@c3net.net) wrote:
> :
> : The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
> : performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
> : performer (usually male).
> :
> : Todd
>
> True confession:
>
> Personally, I take a delicious schadenfreude when someone who
> goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
> the female star. Particularly because they have no idea
> they made an egregious faux pas. The theatrical equivalent
> of wandering around with toilet paper on the bottom of one's shoe.
>
> Karen
> _________________________________________________________________
> FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/Tim/Theatre/TheatreLinks.htm
> To leave this mailing list, send mail to majo...@world.std.com
> with the message UNSUBSCRIBE MUSICALS
>
Catherine Skidmore
Jeremy Whelan wrote:
>
> ACTING TEACHERS RAPING STUDENTS
hey, start a new thread if you want to start a new topic. this has
nothing to do with saying 'bravo!'
-catherine
--
Catherine Skidmore
http://www.suck-my-big.org
"A time is called dark, not because the light refuses to
shine but because people refuse to see it." - James Michener
Biff McKeldin
On 13 Jan 1998, Karen Horn wrote:
> JIM BARNETT (jbar...@c3net.net) wrote:
> :
> : The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
> : performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
> : performer (usually male).
> :
> : Todd
>
> True confession:
>
> Personally, I take a delicious schadenfreude when someone who
> goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
> the female star. Particularly because they have no idea
> they made an egregious faux pas. The theatrical equivalent
> of wandering around with toilet paper on the bottom of one's shoe.
OK, my confession: (and this is certainly contradictory given my "hard
line" on the cast album/sound track debate) -- but I've always been
annoyed by people who yell "bravi" or "brava" at the theater. Unless
you're at the opera or in Italy, I say shut up and applaud. The reason
why "bravo" is "butchered" in English is because English doesn't have
masculine/feminine endings. To impose romance language rules at English
language performances is pretentious.
Biff
---------------------------
"Facts don't interest me -- what matters is the song."
BlueSkyFox
Karen Horn wrote:
>
> The theatrical equivalent of wandering around with toilet paper on the
> bottom of one's shoe.
and, in another post,
> Most likely the guy with nachos stuck in his teeth and toilet paper on
> his shoe.
Karen, we gotta find you some better dating material! Come back to the
east coast!
Dan (the Man)
Matthew Winn
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 03:32:00PM +0000, Biff McKeldin wrote:
> OK, my confession: (and this is certainly contradictory given my "hard
> line" on the cast album/sound track debate) -- but I've always been
> annoyed by people who yell "bravi" or "brava" at the theater. Unless
> you're at the opera or in Italy, I say shut up and applaud.
Shouters always annoy me, particularly as they usually seem more
concerned with the big star names than the quality of the performance.
I've only heard one "brava!" recently, from someone who evidently knew
enough to get the ending right but not enough to realise that the fact
that the actress was the only name he recognised in the programme did
not make up for the fact that she couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.
Matthew
Adam D. Feldman
Karen Horn wrote:
> : The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
> : performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
> : performer (usually male).
> Personally, I take a delicious schadenfreude when someone who
> goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
> the female star.
Pure cockamamie snobbery, Karen. Tsk tsk. It doesn't matter what "bravo"
means in Italian, because we speak English, not Italian, and in English,
"bravo" is merely an interjection "used in praising a performer" (Random
House), not "used in praising a male perfomer."
Warmly,
Adam
Jeff Marx
Biff wrote:
<<The reason
why "bravo" is "butchered" in English is because English doesn't have
masculine/feminine endings. To impose romance language rules at English
language performances is pretentious.>>
BRAVO. I'm with Biff.
Jeff Marx
----------
It's called flowers wilt.
It's called apples rot.
It's called thieves get rich and saints get shot.
It's called God don't answer prayers a lot.
Alright, now you know.
-- Stephen Sondheim in MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG
Karen Horn
HugMe Joey (hugm...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: For example....if you call a mail carrier the "mailman", that's politically
: incorrect.
Huh? I call them all "postals."
: But if you're calling a female performer an actress, it's not. Why? Simple.
: No one of the mail sex can be called an actress. Now it WOULD be politically
: incorrect to call an actress an actor, just as you would never call and actor
: an actress.
A lot of females who act PREFER to be called an "actor." It's almost
PC these days NOT to call a female who acts an "actor."
: Make sense?
No. "Actress" is perfectly noble, good, and righteous. And it
doesn't lead to silly assed circumlocutions such as "...our next award
is for the female actor of the year...." Boy did I zap past THAT
channel...
Anyway, we've "been there" "done that" along those thread lines before.
: joe
Karen
Karen Horn
Ee Kuan Low (eeku...@usq.edu.au) wrote:
: > No one of the mail sex can be called an actress
Hey, just the thought of my mailman having sex grosses me out!
Karen
Karen Horn
Karen Horn
Biff McKeldin (we...@is6.nyu.edu) wrote:
: On 13 Jan 1998, Karen Horn wrote:
:
: > :
: > : The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
: > : performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
: > : performer (usually male).
: > : Todd
: >
: > True confession:
: >
: > Personally, I take a delicious schadenfreude when someone who
: > goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
: > they made an egregious faux pas. The theatrical equivalent
: > of wandering around with toilet paper on the bottom of one's shoe.
:
: line" on the cast album/sound track debate) -- but I've always been
: annoyed by people who yell "bravi" or "brava" at the theater. Unless
: why "bravo" is "butchered" in English is because English doesn't have
: masculine/feminine endings. To impose romance language rules at English
: language performances is pretentious.
:
: Biff
Well...I agree with you on my vast _preference_ for people shutting up
and applauding. However, if they're going to draw attention to
themselves, at least they should have the grammatical courtesy
not to do so in a way that makes me think of them as not only
pretentious, but ignorant as well.
Hence, that's why I love it if they screw up. :-) Miss Horn
is far too polite, however, to point it out to the offending party
in the parking lot. Besides, she does not want to "correct" and
ergo rob _other_ cognoscente who will be future co-patrons of "Mr. Bravo"
their moment of schadenfreude.
Karen
Eric Hunsley
: The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
: performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
: performer (usually male).
: "He thinks he's better than I" (When I would say "He thinks he's
: better than me.")
: I wish you would say "cleaned", instead of "cleand". Don't take it
: personally.>
> So tell me, Richard, do you feel bad or do you feel badly when someone makes
> such an egregious mistake?
For the record, I DO have a snail mail address that I am willing to give
out to whomever is distributing the official RATM Grammar Certificates.
As soon as I've met my minimum course requirements, do let me know!
(BTW, does anyone have an extra syllabus? I seem to have lost mine.)
Gramatically yours,
Eric Hunsley
ny, ny
beasonj
Language changes; after all, the English language didn't even exist 1000
years ago. Also, I believe are no such things as 'rules' of grammar,
despite what my teachers may have told me. There are merely guidelines,
jumping off points. My goal in using language is to communicate;
sometimes sticking to the 'rules' can actually get in the way of
communicating. The illegal form is often just as clear and meaningful
as the legal form, while sounding better to my ear, and I imagine to the
ears of many others. Using the legal form, on the other hand, will very
often set up an artifical distance. I don't want to be Henry Higgins.
Concerning actor/actress: what do female actors want to be called, I
wonder? And as far as 'in acting, just as in prostitution, gender is
significant', is it really? Sure, it maps a person to certain roles,
but is the craft and the career really different?
Concerning 'bravo/a/i/e', I think 'bravo' can be considered an English
word when used by English speakers when praising performances in English
performed in English-speaking countries. Therefore I'd consider it
acceptable for the usage to differ from the parent language.
Joe
Bjorn Olsson
Sam Ross wrote:
>
> I have not seen anything in the past 12 months that would even merit a
> standing ovation let alone yelling Bravo or brava!
> Sam
Not even a bravi?
As a performer I love it when people voice their appreciation and I
never even realized that people could feel disturbed by it, and I must
say it's even stranger that you would gat upset by incorrect Italian
grammar!If someone would tell me: "You was fabulous" I would'nt tell
him: "It's WERE, dude..."
Do you guys ever go to the Opera?
b
Jeff62871
Personally, I feel that theatre, of all artistic arenas, is the least of which
that should welcome "Politcal Correctness". "Political INCorrectness" is only
honesty, after all. Yes, I understand that some women may find the title
"actress" to be demeaning, but in the end it comes down to is semantics. It's
time to move on. If you are a female actor, and someone calls you an
"actress", build a bridge and get over it.
Jeff
Karen Horn
beasonj (bea...@pprd.abbott.com) wrote:
: Language changes; after all, the English language didn't even exist 1000
: years ago.
Well, not as she is spoke today, but the above is a fallacy.
The reason English has "so many words" is that we borrow from
other people. Why the heck do you think the legal language is
so florid? Why issue a statement saying the party must "stop, cease,
and desist" X activity? They are all subtle nuances. Cease and
desist were borrowed because English speaking people found words
in other languages that were useful for these shades of meaning.
: Also, I believe are no such things as 'rules' of grammar,
: despite what my teachers may have told me.
You shoulda listened. Damn straight there are "rules" as to what
educated people consider to be proper usage. Proper usage
contributes to understanding and precision. All worthy things.
And like it or not people WILL judge you on how well you use
the language. Especially in business settings.
: There are merely guidelines,
: jumping off points. My goal in using language is to communicate;
: sometimes sticking to the 'rules' can actually get in the way of
: communicating. The illegal form is often just as clear and meaningful
: as the legal form, while sounding better to my ear, and I imagine to the
: ears of many others.
Weel, I spose U kan argu til domesdae. Butt eye will all ways argu
that them that takes the thyme to ewes gud speling and talk right
will git futher in life than them what talks and rights like ignerant
folk. Nobuddy shuld be two qwik too jump onta sumbuddy's beehind
four the onecest inna wile misteak. I meen, nobuddy's perfeck. Two
pretend that one way of spaking and righting is as gud as another
is a dam lye thow. U rilly ain't doin nobuddy no favers buy pretending
pepul who don't right wright and talk gud nun will git as fur along in
lif. Eye bet U unnerstood this hole paragraf, but eye bet it wuz
a dam Istrane to reed. And I even made. Whut are called cumeplete
sentances in the abuv. Even eye kan't e-mule-ate, uh, emmewelate,
ah, heck pretennd my Englush is THAT bad. And of coarse U giv furriners
a friggen brake. I meen, lettuce not bee annul or sumpthin'. We're
knot asswholes or whatknot.
: Using the legal form, on the other hand, will very
: often set up an artifical distance. I don't want to be Henry Higgins.
I dunno, U rote prety gud in your poste. I meen, I even red it cuz
I could reed it and didnna hafta strane hardly a tall. I betcha
iffen U rote like Eye'm righting now, ewe'd have bleeped over the
sun-uv-a-gun. Eye know if eye wuz reeding whut eye just rote,
I'd a stoppped a ways back.
Usin' the "legal form" is pre-cise-ly what HH had in mind by remindin'
foks that they wuz speakin' the language of "Shakespeare and Milton
and the Bible." Two reech four the hightest common denomminater
ruther then the lo-est.
: Joe
Carun
NPiddock
I have successfully used this technique before when playing emotional scenes
on stage,but this was out of personal choice and not by the coertion of
others.
I went to a so called method teacher and all I came away with was the feeling
that in the emotional recall groups it seemed to be full of people all wanting
to have a more traumatic story than the last.
Some form of heart tugging one-upmanship perhaps.
Neil P
MamaNilla
> But if you're calling a female performer an actress, it's not. Why? Simple.
> incorrect to call an actress an actor, just as you would never call and actor
> an actress.
>
no one really but when has that ever stopped someone from posting or
talking. ;-)
but actually it's a semantics or word construction or some type of problem
like that. When did the suffix "or" become relegated to meaning a male.
I think that's where political correctness comes into play. An actor
means someone who acts (or thinks they can as the case may be).
That's a simple term which refers to everyone without having specific
gender connotations. Actress is diminuitive and therefore "sexist"
because it was established to set apart/divide a concept that didn't need
the distinction based upon as person's gender/sex.
You wouldn't call a woman who happened to be in the medical profession a
doctress, so why call a woman in the theatre world an actress.
plink plink
thomas
MamaNilla is lord of the universe
"Hey Thomas! Yeah Yeah! Call Me Stokes!"--BSM
******************************************************************************
Thomas CASA-NC Ambassador: Contemporary A cappella Society
WEB PAGES: members.tripod.com/~Nilla13
Gwen Stewart Page at http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/2371/GWEN.html
******************************************************************************
AngeL52560
I completly agree! I think people who scream out "bravo" are annoying...The
actors on stage know they're good. There are ways of showing your enthusiem
without over-killing it
Ed Mendelssohn
NPiddock wrote:
> I went to a so called method teacher and all I came away with was the feeling
> that in the emotional recall groups it seemed to be full of people all wanting
> to have a more traumatic story than the last.
Did you feel "Nothing"?
Ed
Adam D. Feldman
Karen Horn wrote:
> Weel, I spose U kan argu til domesdae. Butt eye will all ways argu
> that them that takes the thyme to ewes gud speling and talk right
> will git futher in life than them what talks and rights like ignerant
> folk.
There is a substantive difference between sharing normative spellings,
which most people basically recognize as a useful common currency, and
adhering to certain "rules" of grammar, many of which are obsolescent.
The poster (Joe) was clearly putting a premium on meaning and clarity
rather than in formal correctness for its own sake. A case in point
might be the injunction against split infinitives, which is quietly
eroding, allowing us to boldly go where no writers were once supposed
to.
Far from embracing normative English, incidentally, in this case you are
arguing for the importation of grammatical distinctions that are foreign
in origin and usage. The proper English form *is* "bravo."
> Usin' the "legal form" is pre-cise-ly what HH had in mind by remindin'
> foks that they wuz speakin' the language of "Shakespeare and Milton
> and the Bible."
I'm pretty sure the Bible was't written in English, sweetie. :)
Warmly,
Adam
Richard Wall
Then what do you do with "hero & heroine"? Heroine has practically dropped
out of usage.
Richard Wall
Ok I feel stupid calling Joan of Arc a "hero".
Karen Horn wrote:
>
> Richard Wall (rcw...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : Then what do you do with "hero & heroine"? Heroine has practically dropped
> : out of usage.
>
> "Heroine" has dropped out of usuage probably as much due to
> people not being able to handle the word "heroine" as being
> something other than a drug.
>
> Karen
Iginio
Depends on what your values are, Tim. Correct grammar is VERY important to
many of us, as is correct spelling. : )
Iginio
Tim McNair wrote in message
<1d2s1d4.1y3...@tac-lx100-ip11.nwnexus.net>...
>
, ... it would seem to me that whether
>or not what is said is gramatically correct, the audience enjoyed the
>performance and is expreessing its appreciation. Isn't that a lot more
>important than whether or not they have made a gramatical error???
>
>
>--
>--Tim McNair--
>tim...@halcyon.com
Alison Franck
OK...I see your point. I myself studied acting at Syracuse University
and received my BFA. My Sense Memory/Emotional Recall professor, Edward
Greer (God Rest His Soul) would have quite a few bones to pick with the
statements you just made. On many levels I agree with what you are
saying, but in a supervised environment such as the one in my acting
program...I have to say the techniques were nothing but exercises that
were HIGHLY HIGHLY protected against the kind of abuse you are
discussing.
In class we started the first semester with Sensory recall (sight,
taste, smells)...then phyical everyday activities (ie: brushing teeth,
taking medicine, trying on perfumes...etc) Then our second semester we
SLOWLY worked up to emotional recall (pleasant & unpleasant...AKA happy
& sad...to possibly cause us to laugh or cry) STRICT STRICT STRICT
rules were applied such as NOT choosing any unpleasant memories from the
past 7 years...ALSO we were not ever ever ever asked to tell anyone what
memories we were using..in fact we were explicitly asked to keep it to
ourselves. All that said, the process was slow and careful and although
in front of a class of about 15 others, it was a private
exploration...one I took my time with...and one that was not terribly
affective for me at the time. I finally cried in class...and it was a
simple honest moment. It did not harm me in any way. Later as an
actress, I found that my own devotion to my text was how emotion was
discovered...but sometmes, I did use this technique a few times...and I
found it affective when I worked as an actress/singer.
What's my point? My point is, perhaps there are awful teachers out there
NOT teaching this technique correctly, but I feel my teacher taught it
without it invading the students' psychological well-being. It was
taught as a very helpful aid...and NO ONE frowned upon or judged anyone
for NOT laughing or crying on cue...it was simply taught as an excercise
that MAY or MAY NOT help the actor. And the dangers of the technique
were ALSO thoroughly EXPLAINED to us by our professor. It saddens me to
know that many teachers COULD exploit actors' emotions with this
technique...because in my experience, my classmates and myself were
protected. I think every fellow graduate of my program will agree with
me here.
I also think that in most cases, many actors use this technique without
even knowing they are, it's part of an actor's instinct to draw upon
what emotions THEY know or understand and to substitute their own
memories when the text does not support the emotions they need to be
feeling. But it was a wonderful, useful technique for me to study...and
it would be a shame if it becomes banned in acting programs.
Perhaps though the CORRECT way to supervise this technique needs to be
followed. In your defense, I agree that if actor teachings are
EXPLOITING students with this technique, those individuals need to be
supervised...or fired.
Alison
JIM BARNETT
Adam D. Feldman wrote:
>
> Karen Horn wrote:
>
> > : The word "Bravo!" is taken from Italian.....which means "excellent
> > : performance." It's a term used to give a standing ovation to the
> > : performer (usually male).
>
> > goes to theatre more to be seen than to see yells "Bravo" at
> > the female star.
>
> means in Italian, because we speak English, not Italian, and in English,
> "bravo" is merely an interjection "used in praising a performer" (Random
> House), not "used in praising a male perfomer."
True, Adam, but you must remember that "bravo" was borrowed from the
Italian language and was incorporated in our language.
After having studied the Italian language and its culture for two years,
it's interesting to note the commonalities that both languages have. As
an enthusiast of foreign language study, I find it fascinating that the
use of these words vary geographically and demographically worldwide.
The reason, as Biff said earlier, that "bravo" is not used in the
Italian way in our culture is that the English language does NOT
emphasize on the significance of gender. The English language is THE
only language in the world that DOES NOT use male or female designations
in the words.
To clarify my point further, here's an example.
In English, we say, "The book is on the table." Now immigrants who
arrive on American soil would be confused because they can't ascertain
whether the word "book" emphasizes on gender or not. They can't
ascertain whether it's masculine or feminine. In their own language,
yes, because their own language emphasizes on gender in the grammatical
sense.
In Italian, the English sentence "The book is on the table" would
be "Il libro e' sul tavolo." If the "table" is frequently employed
for culinary purposes, it would be "Il libro e' sulla tavola." "Tavolo"
could be any kind of table. The usage of the word depends on the
occasion.
Mind you , "il libro" is masculine and "sul tavolo" is also masculine.
But in English, gender has no importance at all.
But getting back to my point, the English language doesn't emphatically
show gender in grammar. It's possible that "the book" is masculine in
English, but there's no indication of that.
The reason I brought up the post about "bravo," "brava," "bravi," and
"brave" was that to Italians, it's the correct way of giving respect
and appreciation to the performer's performance. Because our language
doesn't use gender identifications at all, yes, "bravo" is used to
any performer, regardless of gender and number.
With all due respect, native Italians will see it the other way. Take
my word for it, please.
Todd
Todd Andrew Barnett: A Composer's Homepage
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/composerTB/index.html
The Entertainment Zone
http://www.serve.com/TAB/
> Warmly,
>
> Adam
P.S. I didn't mean to ignite a terrible controversy over this matter. It
was my intention to ignite an interesting debate on language and
cultural differences when applied to musical theater.
Karen Horn
Adam D. Feldman (ad...@kobliner.com) wrote:
:
: I'm pretty sure the Bible was't written in English, sweetie. :)
:
: Warmly,
:
: Adam
If "bravo" is englush, than the bibbull is englush. at least the ones
on my shelf what ain't in latun, greek, or pa-ruskie. eye even here
they got sum in hebbrew. All this here hoarsepuckie that one person's
englush is as gud as annother are lud-i-crease, uh, lewdicrus, ah,
hell, DUMB.
An anyways, HH was making the pernt that Miz doolil was capable
of such prose as ewezd by the King Jimmy bibbull.
Watt'z the youse of pretendin'? If ewe spoke, as she done, sur, insted
of the weigh ewe due, Y, U might be selling muskcatell 2.
Good grammar and correct spelling NEVER get in the way of
communications.
Carrin
Karen Horn
MamaNilla (ni...@email.unc.edu) wrote:
: That's a simple term which refers to everyone without having specific
: gender connotations. Actress is diminuitive and therefore "sexist"
: because it was established to set apart/divide a concept that didn't need
: the distinction based upon as person's gender/sex.
False assumption re: "actress" being diminuitive. That sort of
thinking will have you believe "kudos" is plural.
: You wouldn't call a woman who happened to be in the medical profession a
: doctress, so why call a woman in the theatre world an actress.
You're reading far left-wing ideological cant into every aspect of
linguistics. Doesn't work that way.
Personally, I like a word like "aviatrix." Quite sexy, and daring at
the same time. And as someone else said to me off line when we
had this go around before: "Poetess" didn't really offend him. But
in that case, he'd be loathe to read their ruminations.
:
: plink plink
:
: thomas
Off with the rum and the bibles....
No, wait, sorry, that's clink clink.
Karen
Karen Horn
Jeff Marx
: You wouldn't call a woman who happened to be in the medical profession a
: doctress, so why call a woman in the theatre world an actress.
Dictionary, babe. Get one. It contains commonly agreed upon definitions.
Jeff Marx
Richard Wall wrote:
<<Heroine has practically dropped out of usage.>>
Not in New York.
Jeff Marx
<<I completly agree! I think people who scream out "bravo" are annoying...>>
I prefer to scream out, YOU COW! YOU COW! MOO! MOO!
Because in Indian cultures, a cow is worshipped as a great holy animal.
David Burrows
Adam D. Feldman wrote in message <34BBF4...@kobliner.com>...
>I'm pretty sure the Bible was't written in English, sweetie. :)
a) But the King James Bible is written in English, and I'm fairly certain
that that is the Bible that Henry Higgins is referring to, since that was
(is?) the most widely-read translation in modern times.
b) You are arguing a point made by a fictional character, and seem not even
to be aware you are doing it. Interesting.
c) While we are arguing the importance of dotting our "i"s and crossing our
"t"s, can we also discuss the importance of civility and good manners? The
type of sexist condescension implied in the use of the word "sweetie"
undermines the valid points you make in your argument by making them appear
to come from the keyboard of a chauvinist pig. Hardly the impression you
were trying to make, I'm sure.
Dave
David Burrows
Richard Wall wrote in message <34BC13D7...@mindspring.com>...
>> You wouldn't call a woman who happened to be in the medical profession a
>> doctress, so why call a woman in the theatre world an actress.
But if I wanted someone to perform surgery on me, I would request a doctor,
whereas if I want someone to play the part of Maria in WEST SIDE STORY, I'm
pretty sure I would hire an actress.
The notion that the word "actress" is in some way a slight to women is
ludicrous. It is simply a matter of differentiating between males and
females in a language that is sadly gender-neutral. Other romantic
languages (French, for example) have no problem with the distinction between
male and female, since it is built into the language itself. Lacking that,
we have to invent constructs and derivatives to suggest gender where gender
is significant. (NOTE: But only where it is significant. I agree that
where gender is not an issue, we should have no need of a second,
gender-specific word.)
Dave
Karen Horn
David Burrows (dbur...@tlc.wincom.net) wrote:
: c) While we are arguing the importance of dotting our "i"s and crossing our
: "t"s, can we also discuss the importance of civility and good manners? The
: type of sexist condescension implied in the use of the word "sweetie"
: undermines the valid points you make in your argument by making them appear
: to come from the keyboard of a chauvinist pig. Hardly the impression you
: were trying to make, I'm sure.
:
: Dave
Oh, don't knock Adam on that one. We're old sparring partners,
just for fun. :-) Adam's being a prig and I'm being an elitist.
Sometimes we change sides for laughs.
Bottom line is that "Bravo, bravi, brava" all sound damn silly
to me at a theatrical performance other than opera, and I just
choose to take smug satisfaction at those people who toss a
400 decibel "Bravo" at a woman. What WOULD be fun would be
to yell "Brava" at a man.
Just to piss everyone off.
Karen
NPiddock
In reply to Ed,yes I did feel something,in fact it was very traumatic,but it
still didn't take away the feeling that people were there to better each other
in the emotional stakes.
Neil P
Jeff Marx
Iginio wrote:
<<Depends on what your values are, Tim. Correct grammar is VERY important to
many of us, as is correct spelling. : )>>
That which appears before your first period is a fragment, not a sentence,
Iginio.
Jeff
Matthew Winn
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 06:10:15PM -0500, Adam D. Feldman wrote:
> There is a substantive difference between sharing normative spellings,
> which most people basically recognize as a useful common currency, and
> adhering to certain "rules" of grammar, many of which are obsolescent.
> The poster (Joe) was clearly putting a premium on meaning and clarity
> rather than in formal correctness for its own sake. A case in point
> might be the injunction against split infinitives, which is quietly
> eroding, allowing us to boldly go where no writers were once supposed
> to.
The case of split infinitives isn't a good example to use because
English has never had such a grammatical rule. It originated in the
19th century, I believe, as a result of the admiration the upper
classes had for all things classical. Several grammatical rules from
Latin and related languages were inappropriately applied to English,
among them the idea that because in many Romance languages the
infinitive is a single word it should remain a single unit in English.
I would say that there is no difference between clarity and correct
grammar. When I'm reading and hit incorrect grammar it temporarily
derails my train of thought: I have to back up and try again to work
out what was intended. This does not aid my comprehension of what was
written, so correct grammar benefits both me and the author. How does
formal correctness get in the way of meaning and clarity? Getting
something wrong isn't a way of expressing yourself more colourfully:
unless done for deliberate effect it is just plain _wrong_. The rules
are simple enough. Stupidity is stupidity.
Don't get me started on shops which sell "fish and chip's".
> Far from embracing normative English, incidentally, in this case you are
> arguing for the importation of grammatical distinctions that are foreign
> in origin and usage. The proper English form *is* "bravo."
I'd tend to agree with this. We seem to be in the middle of the
anglicisation (sp?) of this word. Eventually "brava" will become
obsolete.
Matthew
Matthew Winn
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 10:22:51PM -0500, Richard Wall wrote:
> Ok I feel stupid calling Joan of Arc a "hero".
I don't think she's in a position to complain.
Matthew
Ee Kuan Low
Amen.
English is not my first language but I try very hard to speak and write
properly. It is definitely TRUE that we are judged by the way we speak
and write, especially in business but not only in business. However, I
must say you did a great job "reechin' fer the highest comen dinominater
ruther then the lo-est"....*smile* Good work, "Carun". (If anyone of
you is interested to know, I was cringing and straining all the way
while reading Karen's attempt at writing 'just' to
communicate)....*grin*
Ee Kuan
============
Ee Kuan Low
Queensland, Australia
Ee Kuan Low
Hello people
First things first, English is not my first language. If I make any
linguistic errors, God forgive me *smile*.
Judging from the number of postings (comments, cross-comments, opinions
etc) on this topic, don't you think that proper usage of English is
relatively, if not terribly important to all of us? If not, why are we
spending so much time on a posting that was originally intended to be
just "an interesting debate on language and cultural differences when
applied to musical theatre".
I have a thought lingering in my head that says "Ee Kuan, the next time
you post something to this or any other 'bloody' newsgroup, make sure
you proof-read what you've written. Better yet, get someone else to
proof-read it for you. *grin*"
By the way, if I do make any mistakes when I post stuff to the
newsgroup, do tell me - constructively, I hope. In any case, do inform
me and try to forgive me for my ignorance.
Ee Kuan
================
MuzikMaidn
In a message dated 98-01-14 01:56:25 EST, kah...@king.cts.com writes:
>Richard Wall (rcw...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: Then what do you do with "hero & heroine"? Heroine has practically dropped
>: out of usage.
>
>"Heroine" has dropped out of usuage probably as much due to
>people not being able to handle the word "heroine" as being
>something other than a drug.
Isnt the word used now "Ingenue"? I dont know, but somehow that word always
gives me visions of debutante balls and coming our parties and other
trivialities like that.....thats why I love The Boy and The Girl in THE
FANTASTICKS.....
MuzikMaidn
Joe M. Turner
On 13 Jan 1998 21:39:30 GMT, kah...@king.cts.com (Karen Horn) wrote:
> four the onecest inna wile misteak. I meen, nobuddy's perfeck. Two
You misspelled "perfick."
...
Regards,
Joe M. Turner
mailto: jmtu...@atl.mindspring.com
<http://www.atl.mindspring.com/~jmturner>
Joe M. Turner
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:35:12 -0500, MamaNilla <ni...@email.unc.edu>
wrote:
> You wouldn't call a woman who happened to be in the medical profession a
> doctress, so why call a woman in the theatre world an actress.
>
I thought we said that the difference was that gender had little to do
with the actual practice of medicine, but was certainly more of a
career-defining characteristic in acting. (The long line of female
Hamlets notwithstanding.)
The very idea of moving the entire language toward a unisexual or
asexual language seems, to me, to be even more demeaning than using
the perfectly valid and beautiful terms we already have. I'd rathe
make the effort to imbue the words "actress" and "comedienne" (and
"dominatrix"... wait, no, not necessarily that one) with the respect
they truly deserve than eliminate the words from the language in a
misguided attempt to look like "someone who gets it."
("It" often turns out to be "overheated at actually noticing that men
and women differ from each other in some ways.")
Joe M. Turner
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:06:31 GMT, JIM BARNETT <jbar...@c3net.net>
wrote:
> But in English, gender has no importance at all.
I hear that it has no importance *to* the English, either.
(Just kidding.)
Joe M. Turner
On 14 Jan 1998 04:49:01 GMT, jeff...@aol.com (Jeff Marx) wrote:
> I prefer to scream out, YOU COW! YOU COW! MOO! MOO!
>
> Because in Indian cultures, a cow is worshipped as a great holy animal.
>
>
> Jeff Marx
Now *that's* funny. ROTFL!
(There's a Far Side cartoon in there somewhere, just trying to get
out.)
Sam Ross
I am not against yelling at certain theatrical productions--either boo or
Bravo or Bravi or .... The point I was trying to make was that nothing in
the past 12 months that I have seen was deserving of such a reception.
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Bjorn Olsson wrote:
> Sam Ross wrote:
> >
> > I have not seen anything in the past 12 months that would even merit a
> > standing ovation let alone yelling Bravo or brava!
> > Sam
>
>
> Not even a bravi?
> As a performer I love it when people voice their appreciation and I
> never even realized that people could feel disturbed by it, and I must
> say it's even stranger that you would gat upset by incorrect Italian
> grammar!If someone would tell me: "You was fabulous" I would'nt tell
> him: "It's WERE, dude..."
> Do you guys ever go to the Opera?
> b
> _________________________________________________________________
> FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/Tim/Theatre/TheatreLinks.htm
> To leave this mailing list, send mail to majordomo@world..std.com
> with the message UNSUBSCRIBE MUSICALS
>
Tim McNair
Iginio <igi...@ibm.net> wrote:
> Depends on what your values are, Tim. Correct grammar is VERY important to
> many of us, as is correct spelling. : )
>
> Iginio
>
I suppose I might step on toes here and I don't intend to. I know a lot
of folks here are performers, and I never have been one-(at least on
stage-sometimes my work as an emergency doc does require some acting) It
would just seem to me that the fact that they audience enjoyed itself
and was expressing it would be more important than the exact way they
were doing so. If this isn't the case-and it looks like its not, I'd
appreciae an explanation. --I'm not trolling for a flame here-I am just
trying to understand why the difference in the various forms of bravo
seems to be so important. I have people mispronounce and misuse medical
terms to me all day long and I just figure that with 20 years in the
business I should know them while they shouldn't be required to. Why is
that different in this case?
--
Tim McNair
tim...@halcyon.com
Ed Mendelssohn
Hey, anyone hear get the feeling that Neil, here, missed the joke.
What do you think, Karen. :-)
Ed
Adam D. Feldman
JIM BARNETT wrote:
> > Pure cockamamie snobbery, Karen. Tsk tsk. It doesn't matter what "bravo"
> > means in Italian, because we speak English, not Italian, and in English,
> > "bravo" is merely an interjection "used in praising a performer" (Random
> > House), not "used in praising a male perfomer."
> True, Adam, but you must remember that "bravo" was borrowed from the
> Italian language and was incorporated in our language [...]
> The reason I brought up the post about "bravo," "brava," "bravi," and
> "brave" was that to Italians, it's the correct way of giving respect
> and appreciation to the performer's performance. Because our language
> doesn't use gender identifications at all, yes, "bravo" is used to
> any performer, regardless of gender and number.
Um... yeah. That's what I said, Todd.
Warmly,
Adam
Adam D. Feldman
Karen Horn wrote:
> Good grammar and correct spelling NEVER get in the way of
> communications.
I'm not arguing in favor of bad grammar -- Lord knows I've inveighed
against it more than enough times in the past. But I do think that some
of the rules of "good grammar" are more essential than others, and that,
in fact, there are many occasions when the use of "good grammar" can
make a sentence more convoluted and more confusing -- especially in
verbal communication -- than a less rigorous verion would.
Warmly,
Adam
Adam D. Feldman
David Burrows wrote:
> a) But the King James Bible is written in English, and I'm fairly certain
> that that is the Bible that Henry Higgins is referring to, since that was
> (is?) the most widely-read translation in modern times.
I was merely commenting on the irony of using this as an example to prop
up the use of foreign inflections in English. Because, of course, the
Bible is *full* of bastardized, Anglicized versions of foreign names and
terms.
> b) You are arguing a point made by a fictional character, and seem not even
> to be aware you are doing it. Interesting.
I am arguing a point made by Karen through the vehicle of a fictional
character, Dave. This is a distinction you refuse to fully grasp.
Interesting.
> c) While we are arguing the importance of dotting our "i"s and crossing our
> "t"s, can we also discuss the importance of civility and good manners? The
> type of sexist condescension implied in the use of the word "sweetie"
> undermines the valid points you make in your argument by making them appear
> to come from the keyboard of a chauvinist pig. Hardly the impression you
> were trying to make, I'm sure.
Don't get your shorts in a twist, cupcake. I'm an equal-opportunity
condescender.
Warmly,
Adam
Adam D. Feldman
Karen Horn wrote:
> Bottom line is that "Bravo, bravi, brava" all sound damn silly
> to me at a theatrical performance other than opera, and I just
> choose to take smug satisfaction at those people who toss a
> 400 decibel "Bravo" at a woman. What WOULD be fun would be
> to yell "Brava" at a man.
Ah, but (just to beat a dead horse into a still bloodier pulp), "brava"
to a man *would* be incorrect in English, where "brava" is reserved for
women but "bravo" is ambisexual. Rather like what actor/actress has
become.
Warmly,
Adam
Karen Horn
Ee Kuan Low (eeku...@usq.edu.au) wrote:
: Amen.
:
: English is not my first language but I try very hard to speak and write
: Queensland, Australia
:
Those stupid paragraphs took me 10 times as long to write as they
normally would have. But to some people, such spellings come
naturally. I was cringing and straining all the way by writing it.
Karen
Karen Horn
Tim McNair (tim...@halcyon.com) wrote:
I suppose because medical terms are considered jargon and because you
are in that profession you should be able to pronounce them. And
people IN your profession would give you an evil look if you
consistenly mispronounced them. Well, since "bravo" and "brava"
are terms used in the English speaking world mostly in an operatic
or theatrical context [and when used outside that context, they
still take on theatrical overtones when delivered] I would expect
anyone who tries to use the jargon to make an attempt to get it right.
Especially if they are theatre patrons who attend often. [And perhaps,
the frequency of attendence is also a factor here.] Especially if they
are going to shout it at the top of their lungs.
If you had a brand new patient reading "tah-mox-AH-fin" off his perscription
drug you might talk about the drug giving him information, which
also clues him in to the correct pronunciation. You'd eventually
hear from him: "Doctor, tah-MOX-ah-fin really wipes me out."
Well, it seems to me people who go around shouting "bravo" in confident
ringing tones are also declaring (in a sense) their affinity and
appreciation of "culture." If they are going to do that, then I
think it looks better if they at least get the form right.
Karen
Catherine Skidmore
Joe M. Turner wrote:
> (There's a Far Side cartoon in there somewhere, just trying to get
> out.)
was it in the Goodbye Girl? "You want to be worshipped? Then go to India
and MOO!"
-catherine
--
Catherine Skidmore
http://www.suck-my-big.org
"A time is called dark, not because the light refuses to
shine but because people refuse to see it." - James Michener
Karen Horn
Madame Leoni (madl...@juno.com) wrote:
:
: how abour gender-blind casting ? If RuPaul was offered and accepted the
: role of Maria in a new production of WSS, and fill the (high-heeled)
: shoes well, I would have no problems.
:
: -ML
Ha-ha. I'll buy a ticket. I just want to be there when they
sing "AN ORDINARY COUPLE" and the show closes right then.
Karen
Karen Horn
Ed Mendelssohn (eme...@netmail2.mnet.uswest.com) wrote:
:-) Yes. Neil, go listen to A CHORUS LINE. Ed quoted the word "Nothing"
for a reason.
Karen <g>
MamaNilla
> >> doctress, so why call a woman in the theatre world an actress.
well richard didn't actually right that. i did, so's not to confuse
anyone.
>
>
> But if I wanted someone to perform surgery on me, I would request a doctor,
> whereas if I want someone to play the part of Maria in WEST SIDE STORY, I'm
> pretty sure I would hire an actress.
>
but would you request a female doctor or if you were doing a
cross-gendered performance would you hire a male actress. okay. whynot
just post the announcement. Actor wanted to protray Maria in west side
story. unless you neded the qualifier, i'm pretty postitive that only
women would show up at the audition.
> The notion that the word "actress" is in some way a slight to women is
> ludicrous.
why?
> It is simply a matter of differentiating between males and
> females in a language that is sadly gender-neutral.
why is gender-specific language a better option?
> Other romantic
> languages (French, for example) have no problem with the distinction between
> male and female, since it is built into the language itself.
last i remember, english is a germanic language. i could be wrong...but
hey. and i do believe there are lots of problems in the "other" romantic
languages. who decided that a chair is feminine. right that's
trouble-free.
> Lacking that,
> we have to invent constructs and derivatives to suggest gender where gender
> is significant. (NOTE: But only where it is significant. I agree that
> where gender is not an issue, we should have no need of a second,
> gender-specific word.)
>
Okay Dave so what's your point? what would YOU classify as being an
instance of where gender-specific words are feasible. hmm
MamaNilla is lord of the universe
"Hey Thomas! Yeah Yeah! Call Me Stokes!"--BSM
******************************************************************************
Thomas CASA-NC Ambassador: Contemporary A cappella Society
WEB PAGES: members.tripod.com/~Nilla13
Gwen Stewart Page at http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/2371/GWEN.html
******************************************************************************
Mark Bakalor
At 08:13 AM 1/14/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>Hey, anyone hear get the feeling that Neil, here, missed the joke.
>What do you think, Karen. :-)
Karen's clue supply must be getting low, but surely she can offer
one to Neil for Nothing. Karen, please send her guidance.
On my knees,
Mark Bakalor hijinks design Stephen Sondheim Stage
ma...@hijinks.com des...@hijinks.com s...@sondheim.com
www.hijinks.com/~mark/ www.hijinks.com/design/ www.sondheim.com
NPiddock
Hey I'm British,we haven't got a sense of humour.
LOL
Neil
Ed Mendelssohn
But you didn't mention "Santa Maria"!!!
Ed
L Kersten
Concerning actor/actress: what do female actors want to be called, I
wonder?
***Back...just like male actors
Lou
Tim McNair
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote:
> Well, it seems to me people who go around shouting "bravo" in confident
> ringing tones are also declaring (in a sense) their affinity and
> appreciation of "culture." If they are going to do that, then I
> think it looks better if they at least get the form right.
>
> Karen
Karen-thanks for the insight. It makes the discussion clearer. I've
always felt that people that yell Bravo or any of its derivitives for
that matter are a bit ostentatious. At the same time though, I figure
that at least they had a good time and that's why they were there. I can
see now how it must grate on the educated ear though.
--
--Tim McNair--
tim...@halcyon.com
Richard Wall
Ok, everybody and his brother has commented on "bravo" and it's derivitives
and use.
I think it's pretty risky trying to tell an audience what and how to respond
to a performance. If someone is moved in a positive way to give a standing
ovation, shout "bravo", "yahoo" or even "right on" - then so be it. Let them
do it. What an honor that someone likes what you've done so much that they
yell "bravo" at you. I can promise you that if you're the one on the stage
and it's yelled at you and you're a woman, you're not going to care - you're
going to be THRILLED.
Likewise the opposite reactions are also permitted, though it rarely happens
in this country that people yell bad things at a stage or throw tomatoes. But
they used to in Europe (throw things) and they still "boo" very freely.
I don't think you can tell an audience what to do, nor do I think you should try.
----------
Iginio
Not a sentence fragment, just colloquial style. : )
Iginio
Jeff Marx wrote in message
<19980114080...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
>That which appears before your first period is a fragment, not a sentence,
>Iginio.
>
>
>Jeff
>----------
>It's called flowers wilt.
>It's called apples rot.
>It's called thieves get rich and saints get shot.
>It's called God don't answer prayers a lot.
>Alright, now you know.
> -- Stephen Sondheim in MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG
>
Iginio
How did "An Ordinary Couple" get into West Side Story? This is a very
avant-garde production indeed and probably deserves to close.
Iginio
Madame Leoni
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:20:09 -0500 "David Burrows"
<dbur...@tlc.wincom.net> writes:
>whereas if I want someone to play the part of Maria in WEST SIDE
>STORY, I'm
>pretty sure I would hire an actress.
>
how abour gender-blind casting ? If RuPaul was offered and accepted the
role of Maria in a new production of WSS, and fill the (high-heeled)
shoes well, I would have no problems.
-ML
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Karen Horn
Tim McNair (tim...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote:
:
:
: > Well, it seems to me people who go around shouting "bravo" in confident
: > ringing tones are also declaring (in a sense) their affinity and
: > appreciation of "culture." If they are going to do that, then I
: > think it looks better if they at least get the form right.
: >
: > Karen
: Karen-thanks for the insight. It makes the discussion clearer. I've
: always felt that people that yell Bravo or any of its derivitives for
: that matter are a bit ostentatious. At the same time though, I figure
: that at least they had a good time and that's why they were there. I can
: see now how it must grate on the educated ear though.
I'm pretty much with you! Though now, if I DO see CHICAGO
again, I'm going to make a point of yelling "Brava" at Mary Sunshine.
Just for giggles.
Karen
harry jennings
On Jan.13th beasonj asked..'what do female actors want to be called?'..I
heard Holly Hunter and Glenn Close call themsrlves 'actors' on A&E's
Bravo.......I enjoy these talks..thanks ..p.j.
can...@webtv.net
only opera buffs of the old school say "brava" - most newbies just shout
bravo - it all sounds the same to the performers anyway - in the world
of ballet it's called "they screamed" :)
Matthew Winn
On Wed, Jan 14, 1998 at 01:25:21PM -0500, MamaNilla wrote:
> [Someone else wrote this: I don't know who because the attribution
> was lost:]
> > The notion that the word "actress" is in some way a slight to women is
> > ludicrous.
>
> why?
Because it is a precise term describing someone who performs a
particular job. An actress is a female who acts. An actor is a male
who acts. The two jobs are distinct: except in rare cases they will
never overlap. I could train for 20 years and become the best darn
Romeo the world has ever seen, but I'll not be playing Juliet without
surgery.
Your response of "why?" suggests that you feel that "actress" _is_ a
slight to women. Care to explain why? It's just the feminine form of
a word which has a different form for each gender. No superiority of
either form is implied, no more than the use of the word "man" implies
superiority over "woman". I would go so far as to suggest that
insisting on the word "actor" for both sexes _is_ demeaning, because
it suggests that without this artificial distortion of the language
"actresses" would be seen as less capable than "actors".
> > It is simply a matter of differentiating between males and
> > females in a language that is sadly gender-neutral.
>
> why is gender-specific language a better option?
Because it introduces clarity where confusion might otherwise arise.
Have you never read any audition ads? They ask for "actors and
actresses" or sometimes "boys and girls" because it is in everyone's
interest to make sure that the requirements are precisely defined.
Gender-neutral language has a place where it removes an unnecessary
distinction - if I referred to my team leader at work as my
"manageress" she would rip my kidneys out - but where two words
describe completely different things gender-neutral language is worse
than an obstruction to clarity: it becomes an insult. By twisting the
language to enforce gender-neutrality the user makes the point that he
or she feels that it is necessary to make a deliberate effort to treat
everyone the same, and thereby implies that there is a real difference
in ability which must be concealed at all costs.
Matthew
MuzikMaidn
Absolutely! Most women in the business refer to themselves as "actors" these
days....after all, thats what they do.....act! In college, the students are
all called actors....and rightfully so....a singer is a singer, a female
singer is not a singstress, is she? Actors are actors...period!
Thank you.....
MuzikMaidn...stepping down from her soap box and clearing away the barricade
Ludlow29
On Jan.13th beasonj asked..'what do female actors want to be called?'..I
heard Holly Hunter and Glenn Close call themsrlves 'actors' on A&E's
Bravo.......I enjoy these talks..thanks ..p.j.
+++++
Well, there's a rule that a female can't appear on Bravo unless she calls
herself an actor. Otherwise, they'd have to change the title of the show to
Brava (which would be too expensive). In fact, before appearing on the show,
these actresses went by the names of Holly Huntress and Glenda Close.
Joe M. Turner
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:58:50 GMT, MuzikMaidn <Muzik...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Absolutely! Most women in the business refer to themselves as "actors" these
> days....after all, thats what they do.....act! In college, the students are
> all called actors....and rightfully so....a singer is a singer, a female
> singer is not a singstress, is she? Actors are actors...period!
>
> Thank you.....
> MuzikMaidn...stepping down from her soap box and clearing away the barricade
Your tone ("Actors are actors...period!") certainly implies that the
discussion has been closed by your final authority. May I have
permission to differ?
Actually, if I were a woman I might like being called a "songstress."
What about "chanteuse?" What about "mother" and "father?" Those are
simply sexual distinctions in parenting. And "brother" and "sister"
should simply call each other "siblings." "Have you met my sibling,
Pat?" (How much more informative it would be to say "...my brother,
Pat" or "...my sister, Pat!") Aunts and Uncles should, I suppose, get
the same treatment as cousins, but since there's no word, we'd have to
say, "Have you met my parent's sibling?"
I'd honestly like to know why the use of different words for actors
and actresses is apparently so threatening or insulting to you. Are
you projecting your own feelings of whether one word implies
superiority or dominance over the other onto my usage of the words?
That sounds a lot like "forcing someone else's personal perceptions or
beliefs down my throat," which is something I thought most of the
"unisex language" folks were usually against. (Oh wait, that would
imply logic and consistency. Never mind.)
...
Regards,
Joe M. Turner
mailto: jmtu...@atl.mindspring.com
<http://www.atl.mindspring.com/~jmturner>
wal...@dnvn.com
In article <1998011508...@sheridan.co.uk>, Matthew Winn
<mat...@sheridan.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 1998 at 01:25:21PM -0500, MamaNilla wrote:
> > [Someone else wrote this: I don't know who because the attribution
> > was lost:]
> > > The notion that the word "actress" is in some way a slight to women is
> > > ludicrous.
> >
> > why?
>
> Because it is a precise term describing someone who performs a
> particular job. An actress is a female who acts. An actor is a male
> who acts. The two jobs are distinct: except in rare cases they will
> never overlap. I could train for 20 years and become the best darn
> Romeo the world has ever seen, but I'll not be playing Juliet without
> surgery.
>
> Your response of "why?" suggests that you feel that "actress" _is_ a
> slight to women. Care to explain why? It's just the feminine form of
> a word which has a different form for each gender. No superiority of
> either form is implied, no more than the use of the word "man" implies
> superiority over "woman". I would go so far as to suggest that
> insisting on the word "actor" for both sexes _is_ demeaning, because
> it suggests that without this artificial distortion of the language
> "actresses" would be seen as less capable than "actors".
>
I saw a bumper sticker not long ago about an organization for
young people which claimed [I am not making this up] to 'train
leaders and leaderettes'] A special form for women who do the same
job as men has traditionally been a way of denigrating women.
A 'lady doctor' is not given the same respect as a 'doctor'.
Waitresses get the crummy jobs in the diners, while waiters
and 'maitre d's' [now there is a silly title] get the high
tip jobs. etc etc. We invent a special role 'physician's assistant'
when we want to recruit men into previously traditional
female roles and women are often given lesser office titles like
secretary when they perform jobs similar to higher paid male
assistance of various sorts. It is rampant on capitol hill.
The idea that 'actress' is necessary because you won't be playing
Juliet is silly. There are plenty of actors who by their physique,
skills or whatever will never be recruited to play Romeo or
Svengali -- Many actresses who are never right for Blanche DuBois
or Tinkerbell -- they are all doing the same job -- acting for
which only one word 'actor' is necessary.
MamaNilla
>
> : You wouldn't call a woman who happened to be in the medical profession a
> : doctress, so why call a woman in the theatre world an actress.
>
Is this a come on, or are you just happy to see me, jeff?
And dude, dictionaries change. Words we agree on today won't necessarily
be agreed upon tomorrow. And as a point of reference, I was offering an
example nothing more, nothing less.
"As the days go by, I keep thinking, when does it end?"
--Merrily We Roll Along
Jeff Marx
<<I have not seen anything in the past 12 months that would even merit a
standing ovation let alone yelling Bravo or brava!
Sam>>
See 1776.
Biff McKeldin
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, David Burrows wrote:
<snip>
> The notion that the word "actress" is in some way a slight to women is
> ludicrous.
<snip>
WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE. Second College
Edition. c1970.
ac*tress (ak/ tris) n. [see -ESS] a woman or girl who acts in plays,
movies, etc.
-ess (is, -s; *occas.* es) [ME. -esse, -isse < OFr. -esse < LL. -issa <
Gr. -issa] *a suffix meaning* female [*lioness*] In nouns of agent ending
in -tor or -ter, the vowel is usually dropped before adding -ess (Ex.:
*actress*): as applied to persons (poetess, Negress, etc.), now often
avoided as patronizing or discriminating.
Biff
---------------------------
"Facts don't interest me -- what matters is the song."
Jeff Marx
Karen Horn
wal...@dnvn.com wrote:
: or Tinkerbell -- they are all doing the same job -- acting for
: which only one word 'actor' is necessary.
Fine. Let's get rid of those archaic and misogynist awards
known as "Best actress" and "Best supporting actress."
Let's see how many of those female actors change their tune.
If they do, then they are hypocrites.
"Oh, we didn't mean THAT."
Karen
Karen Horn
Biff McKeldin (we...@is6.nyu.edu) wrote:
: On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, David Burrows wrote:
:
: <snip>
: > The notion that the word "actress" is in some way a slight to women is
: > ludicrous.
: <snip>
:
: WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE. Second College
: Edition. c1970.
:
: ac*tress (ak/ tris) n. [see -ESS] a woman or girl who acts in plays,
: movies, etc.
:
: -ess (is, -s; *occas.* es) [ME. -esse, -isse < OFr. -esse < LL. -issa <
: Gr. -issa] *a suffix meaning* female [*lioness*] In nouns of agent ending
: in -tor or -ter, the vowel is usually dropped before adding -ess (Ex.:
: *actress*): as applied to persons (poetess, Negress, etc.), now often
: avoided as patronizing or discriminating.
:
:
: Biff
Let me finish what is unspoken:
"...often avoided as patronizing or discriminating, because
politically correct nimrods have been taught to bastardize
the language, and have no feeling for scholarship, and liguistic
niceties. Because the main goal these days is to "feel good" and
not expend intellectual effort. Perchildren not understanding these
now fashionable concepts must dumb themselves down to conform
to the norm or run the risk of being labled sexist or elists.
Or martins. Martinet is also no longer used, as 'et' is also
demeaning."
It is only patronizing to people who have zero self-worth and confidence.
Karen
Professor Dash
Karen,
RE: cancel "actress" awards...
What a marvelous illustration! This example points out the silliness of
tossing the word ACTRESS from our society. There are indeed times when
words simply need to make a distinction, not at anyone's expense, but
for clarity's sake. Clarity is what ART and COMMUNICATION are all about-
not leaving everyone to intellectually drown in the deafening waves of
insider obscurity.
PROFESSOR DASH
"Soon I'll get the credit I deserve"
MuzikMaidn
In a message dated 98-01-15 12:41:25 EST, jmtu...@atl.mindspring.com writes:
>Your tone ("Actors are actors...period!") certainly implies that the
>discussion has been closed by your final authority. May I have
>permission to differ?
The discussion closed by me? Little me? Oh....I sincerely doubt I have that
kind of power or desire. And, of course you have permission to differ! Why
would you need permission..? This is a newsgroup..opinions....merely
opinions. Alhough actors DO act..no?
MuzikMaidn
MamaNilla
> ac*tress (ak/ tris) n. [see -ESS] a woman or girl who acts in plays,
> movies, etc.
>
> -ess (is, -s; *occas.* es) [ME. -esse, -isse < OFr. -esse < LL. -issa <
> Gr. -issa] *a suffix meaning* female [*lioness*] In nouns of agent ending
> in -tor or -ter, the vowel is usually dropped before adding -ess (Ex.:
> *actress*): as applied to persons (poetess, Negress, etc.), now often
> avoided as patronizing or discriminating.
Bless you Biff,
Jeff? anything you have to say, babe?
MamaNilla