Search results

Shakespeare’s Globe, 1999
Carol Chillington Rutter

theatrical creation, the pantomime dame’ embodying ‘both a hatred of women and a fear of homosexuality that can only be defused by the camp excesses of drag’. ‘Cross-dressing’, he concluded, was ‘a risky business’ (8 August 1999). It was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the women reviewers of the Globe's Antony and Cleopatra who most nearly called out both the misogyny and homophobia of the ‘risky business’ that Rylance performed as he attempted to ‘be Cleopatra’. They'd had nearly a decade, tutored by Judith Butler in Gender Trouble (1990) and Marjorie Garber in Vested

in Antony and Cleopatra
Shakespeare in production at the Citizens’ Theatre, Glasgow, 1970–74
Adrienne Scullion

the Citizens’ during the 1970s, such criticisms slip all too readily into an only-faintly disguised homophobia. An unidentified review of this production of Twelfth Night argues that ‘With his [Havergal’s] persistent emphasis on sexual ambiguity, the romance here assumes a rather more sickly colour.’ 19 Describing the stage picture of the 1973 Troilus and Cressida Crichton notes that

in Shakespeare and Scotland
Abstract only
Jeremy Tambling

for pleasure, rather by the need for suffering: Eros and the death-drive in antithesis ( SE 23.243). That leads into consideration of destructiveness. Freud thinks of bisexuality, and argues, as so often, that there is nothing but bisexuality. But ‘a man’s heterosexuality will not put up with any homosexuality, and vice versa ’ ( SE 23.244). Here we fringe on to homophobia and compulsory

in Literature and psychoanalysis
Abstract only
Shakespeare’s brute part
Richard Wilson

’. 54 And this threat of a mugging is of a piece with the bullying essentialism the argument shares with Braveheart and other films of the Celtic Revenge, in a formula that equates Englishness with homosexuality and homosexuality with effeminacy, and relies upon the familiar unexamined chiasmus that the only permitted targets of unthinking homophobia are now English, and of socially acceptable

in Free Will
Robert Shaughnessy

December 1991). More broadly, a significant number of reviewers acknowledged and indeed applauded the implications of what Kenneth Hurren, adopting a bravely contrarian position in relation to his own newspaper, described in the Mail on Sunday (8 December 1991) as ‘a timely intrusion into the gathering cacophony of homophobia that threatens to overwhelm us all’. Benedict Nightingale judged that ‘[t

in As You Like It