On 2020-12-08 3:25 p.m., Mike Duffy wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2020 14:45:41 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> In other words, they taught choreography with swords.
>
> Yes. But even without needless sharpening (especially the point), they
> need to be weighted properly in order for anyone to have practised body
> reflexes to look authentic AND be safe.
>
> But the only thing I know about sword-fighting is second-hand, concerning
> using blackboard pointers as swords and glass-topped fluorescent light-
> tables as choreographed fencing platforms by bored night-shift
> meteorologists during what they called periods of no significant weather.
>
> If you want any informed advice about what it feels like to heft & hack
> with a real albeit dull sword, ask the OP. As he says, it's more
> dangerous than pro / olympic / stunt-acting.
>


We all grew up with swashbukling pirate movies and Robin Hood and lots
of other movies with sword fights that went on and on, often including
some witty repartee. That doesn't happen in real sword fights. They
tend to be short and violent.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 12:19:44 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > I would agree about it being a chick flick, but I have to disagree about
> >> > the sword fighting keeping the boyfriend in his seat.
> >> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
> >> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
> >>
> >> --Bryan
> >
> >Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?

Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.

--Bryan

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 12:19:44 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > I would agree about it being a chick flick, but I have to disagree about
>> >> > the sword fighting keeping the boyfriend in his seat.
>> >> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
>> >> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
>> >>
>> >> --Bryan
>> >
>> >Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
>> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
>
>Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
>
Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
>

Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 12:19:44 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would agree about it being a chick flick, but I have to disagree about
>>>>>> the sword fighting keeping the boyfriend in his seat.
>>>>> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
>>>>> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Bryan
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
>>> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
>>
>> Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
>>
> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
>>

Yoose should start asking for consent Druce.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 12:19:44 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > I would agree about it being a chick flick, but I have to disagree about
> >> >> > the sword fighting keeping the boyfriend in his seat.
> >> >> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
> >> >> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Bryan
> >> >
> >> >Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
> >> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
> >
> >Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
> >
> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
> >
What constitutes *consent* has changed. The casting couch is no more.

--Bryan

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:

>> >> >> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
>> >> >> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --Bryan
>> >> >
>> >> >Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
>> >> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
>> >
>> >Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
>> >
>> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
>> >
>What constitutes *consent* has changed. The casting couch is no more.

With a prostitute it's sex for money. In this case it's sex for a part
in a movie. Isn't that the same?

Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
>>>>>>> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Bryan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
>>>>> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
>>>>
>>>> Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
>>>>
>>> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
>>>>
>> What constitutes *consent* has changed. The casting couch is no more.
>
> With a prostitute it's sex for money. In this case it's sex for a part
> in a movie. Isn't that the same?
>

How much do you pay for a sniff? A nickel?

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-6, Hank Rogers wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
> >>>>>>> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --Bryan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
> >>>>> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
> >>>>
> >>>> Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
> >>>>
> >>> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
> >>>>
> >> What constitutes *consent* has changed. The casting couch is no more.
> >
> > With a prostitute it's sex for money. In this case it's sex for a part
> > in a movie. Isn't that the same?
> >
> How much do you pay for a sniff? A nickel?


She has a "sliding flatus scale" to determine payment...

--
Best
Greg

GM wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-6, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
>>>>>>>>> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Bryan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
>>>>>>> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
>>>>>>
>>>> What constitutes *consent* has changed. The casting couch is no more.
>>>
>>> With a prostitute it's sex for money. In this case it's sex for a part
>>> in a movie. Isn't that the same?
>>>
>> How much do you pay for a sniff? A nickel?
>
>
> She has a "sliding flatus scale" to determine payment...
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>

So it's based on total gaseous volume? Or pressure?

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 4:16:12 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
> >> >> >> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --Bryan
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
> >> >> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
> >> >
> >> >Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
> >> >
> >> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
> >> >
> >What constitutes *consent* has changed. The casting couch is no more.
> With a prostitute it's sex for money. In this case it's sex for a part
> in a movie. Isn't that the same?

No, it isn't, and for several reasons. With straightforward selling/buying
sexual services, one person is paying another, and it is clear what is being
transacted. There may be a power differential, but it really is merely fee
for service.
Then there's the dishonesty toward those who are funding the movie.
Sure, there were folks on the production side who might know that a
particular director is *like that*, and might turn a blind eye because they
feel that the value he adds is worth it, but there's no transparency. The
film director has a responsibility to cast the actress who will maximize
the profit for investors, not the one who allows him to do sexual things
with her.
Of course, the worst aspect is the fact that the director isn't just dangling
the prospect of a one time gig, but a break into higher levels of
employment--"I can make you a star," or even worse, "I could prevent you
from becoming a star."

I wrote a book where a young woman, about two weeks before her 20th
birthday, on a lark, decides to try dancing at a strip club. She meets a
rich widower, and agrees to become his "courtesan" for an extraordinary
salary. She's anything but naive, and insists on being paid weekly. You
should read it.
*********
"Like I'm any different than your maid, or the kid who mowed the yard
yesterday, or folks who give haircuts, or a surgeon. Yeah, surgeon. Look
at that whore. Shameless. She just took out that fellow's gall bladder."
Winter started laughing, "I am sure glad I don't have to take out your gall
bladder."
"Me too."
*********
Steve would indeed hate *Winter's Present*, but not because it is like a
Harlequin romance, because it isn't.

--Bryan

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:21:15 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 4:16:12 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

>> With a prostitute it's sex for money. In this case it's sex for a part
>> in a movie. Isn't that the same?
>
>No, it isn't, and for several reasons. With straightforward selling/buying
>sexual services, one person is paying another, and it is clear what is being
>transacted. There may be a power differential, but it really is merely fee
>for service.
>
>Then there's the dishonesty toward those who are funding the movie.
>Sure, there were folks on the production side who might know that a
>particular director is *like that*, and might turn a blind eye because they
>feel that the value he adds is worth it, but there's no transparency. The
>film director has a responsibility to cast the actress who will maximize
>the profit for investors, not the one who allows him to do sexual things
>with her.

"Maximize the profit for investors." I thought we were talking about
an art form But yeah, blockbusters are merely financial projects. I
don't know what Shakespeare in Love was, because I haven't seen it.

Weinstein probably proposed to Paltrow first and she said Yes to the
transaction. Otherwise the part would have gone to another actress,
without affecting the movie's success, probably.

>Of course, the worst aspect is the fact that the director isn't just dangling
>the prospect of a one time gig, but a break into higher levels of
>employment--"I can make you a star," or even worse, "I could prevent you
>from becoming a star."

The latter would be blackmail.

>I wrote a book where a young woman, about two weeks before her 20th
>birthday, on a lark, decides to try dancing at a strip club. She meets a
>rich widower, and agrees to become his "courtesan" for an extraordinary
>salary. She's anything but naive, and insists on being paid weekly. You
>should read it.
>*********
>"Like I'm any different than your maid, or the kid who mowed the yard
>yesterday, or folks who give haircuts, or a surgeon. Yeah, surgeon. Look
>at that whore. Shameless. She just took out that fellow's gall bladder."
>Winter started laughing, "I am sure glad I don't have to take out your gall
>bladder."
>"Me too."
>*********
>Steve would indeed hate *Winter's Present*, but not because it is like a
>Harlequin romance, because it isn't.

Steve hates everything.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-10, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 4:16:12 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:58:19 -0800 (PST), Bryan Simmons
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> > >> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:31:24 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >
> > >> >> >> I have zero interest in swordfighting. Shakespeare in Love would have been
> > >> >> >> better with a prettier actress. Yes. I am that shallow.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> --Bryan
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
> > >> >> Are you saying he squeezed other women as well?
> > >> >
> > >> >Back then, squeezing was a perquisite enjoyed by many directors.
> > >> >
> > >> Well, as long as the squeezee consented.
> > >> >
> > >What constitutes *consent* has changed. The casting couch is no more.
> > With a prostitute it's sex for money. In this case it's sex for a part
> > in a movie. Isn't that the same?
> No, it isn't, and for several reasons. With straightforward selling/buying
> sexual services, one person is paying another, and it is clear what is being
> transacted. There may be a power differential, but it really is merely fee
> for service.
> Then there's the dishonesty toward those who are funding the movie.
> Sure, there were folks on the production side who might know that a
> particular director is *like that*, and might turn a blind eye because they
> feel that the value he adds is worth it, but there's no transparency. The
> film director has a responsibility to cast the actress who will maximize
> the profit for investors, not the one who allows him to do sexual things
> with her.
> Of course, the worst aspect is the fact that the director isn't just dangling
> the prospect of a one time gig, but a break into higher levels of
> employment--"I can make you a star," or even worse, "I could prevent you
> from becoming a star."
>
> I wrote a book where a young woman, about two weeks before her 20th
> birthday, on a lark, decides to try dancing at a strip club. She meets a
> rich widower, and agrees to become his "courtesan" for an extraordinary
> salary. She's anything but naive, and insists on being paid weekly. You
> should read it.
> *********
> "Like I'm any different than your maid, or the kid who mowed the yard
> yesterday, or folks who give haircuts, or a surgeon. Yeah, surgeon. Look
> at that whore. Shameless. She just took out that fellow's gall bladder."
> Winter started laughing, "I am sure glad I don't have to take out your gall
> bladder."
> "Me too."
> *********
> Steve would indeed hate *Winter's Present*, but not because it is like a
> Harlequin romance, because it isn't.
>
> --Bryan
You might find that the David Mamet movie, "State and Main" tickles your funny bone. it deals with a production company trying to make a commercially successful movie while maintaining artistic integrity. Ironically, that's pretty much the opposite of a David Mamet movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDAUaFXsd9E

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
....
> I'd call my husband a mans' man, and he enjoyed it. He likes
> Shakespeare in Love more.

GP is usually fun to watch and Rush too, of course,
plus i do like Shakespeare.


> I once talked to a co-worker (who'd been an electronics tech in
> the Air Force) about my husband's taste in movies. He said,
> "Anybody who's willing to hang out of a helicopter door can watch
> whatever they want without shame."

haha!


songbird

S Viemeister wrote:
....
> Yes, we all had to learn to use sabers. Unlike Olympic fencing, no
> protective gear was involved. There were only a couple of incidents
> involving bleeding...

i would not go that route as i know how much of a possible
klutz i can be. falling on swords and all that...


songbird

Mike Duffy wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 08:39:32 -0500, songbird wrote:
>
>
>> probably because the house is already full of crap [...]
>> I still hate the whole consumerism approach today. [...]
>
>> do i need to ObElmerFudd that?
>
>
> What we have here is a case of 'mouse production' ?

meeses live outside. the house is actually very clean other
than the clutter in my room. i admit that. but it isn't
gross/nasty clutter.

as i just finished bean harvest and sorting there's dust
from that i need to still get off part of the floor. achoo!
will take me a few more days to get that done. i hate
dusting.

instead today i have a bucket of squash skins and pulp to
feed to the worm buckets, that will be much more fun than
dusting so i'm more likely to do that instead.

ObCooking, the squash turned out well, i roasted about
eight Kabochas and then one fairly large Baby Blue Hubbard
squash. the Kabochas were a little dry and then Hubbard was
pretty moist so when they were all mashed together the
texture was perfect. i froze two half gallon portions of
that and we have the rest in a large bowl for us to eat for
the next week.

zero mile food is good eats. the only miles on any
of the squash would have been the seeds for the Baby Blue
Hubbards. now i have a plentiful supply of seeds for the
future years and/or giving to people who want them.


songbird

On 09/12/2020 12:21, songbird wrote:
> S Viemeister wrote:
> ...
>> Yes, we all had to learn to use sabers. Unlike Olympic fencing, no
>> protective gear was involved. There were only a couple of incidents
>> involving bleeding...
>
> i would not go that route as i know how much of a possible
> klutz i can be. falling on swords and all that...
>
Interestingly, the bleeding episodes only involved the men in the class
- when they failed to follow the choreography laid out by the fencing
master, a Hungarian emigre named Geza Gazdag. None of the women had any
problems.

On 12/6/2020 11:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/6/2020 9:41 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 8:51:56 AM UTC-5, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 20:22:55 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> The TP situation can be easily fixed, same as the did with gas back in
>>>> the 70's. If your birthday is an even number day you only poop on even
>>>> days. If your birthday is an odd number you only poop on odd number
>>>> days. Usage cut in half, no more shortage.
>>> Typical man. You forgot that women use toilet paper 20-30 times a
>>> day. Makeup removal, painting their toenails, stuffing their
>>> bras... and lord knows what all else they do with it other than
>>> peeing.
>>
>> I'm frugal. I reuse the TP from peeing for makeup removal,
>> painting my toenails, and stuffing my bra.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>
> Some people are wasteful and only use one side too.

Lol to all 3 of you. I love "dry humor."

In real life though, when my daughter was an older teenager, she went
through many rolls per week. She kept one in her bedroom too for
whatever she used it for. I never asked.

I only noticed the serious drop after she moved away at age 20.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:02 +0000, S Viemeister
> wrote:

>On 09/12/2020 12:21, songbird wrote:
>> S Viemeister wrote:
>> ...
>>> Yes, we all had to learn to use sabers. Unlike Olympic fencing, no
>>> protective gear was involved. There were only a couple of incidents
>>> involving bleeding...
>>
>> i would not go that route as i know how much of a possible
>> klutz i can be. falling on swords and all that...
>>
>Interestingly, the bleeding episodes only involved the men in the class
>- when they failed to follow the choreography laid out by the fencing
>master, a Hungarian emigre named Geza Gazdag. None of the women had any
>problems.


BFA theater program I was in only had fencing training...I guess here
in the US they expected more Rostand and Dumas....

On 09/12/2020 15:41, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:02 +0000, S Viemeister
>> On 09/12/2020 12:21, songbird wrote:
>>> S Viemeister wrote:
>>>> Yes, we all had to learn to use sabers. Unlike Olympic fencing, no
>>>> protective gear was involved. There were only a couple of incidents
>>>> involving bleeding...
>>>
>>> i would not go that route as i know how much of a possible
>>> klutz i can be. falling on swords and all that...
>>>
>> Interestingly, the bleeding episodes only involved the men in the class
>> - when they failed to follow the choreography laid out by the fencing
>> master, a Hungarian emigre named Geza Gazdag. None of the women had any
>> problems.
>
> BFA theater program I was in only had fencing training...I guess here
> in the US they expected more Rostand and Dumas....
>
Ah, but this _was_ in the US! I studied at the American Academy of
Dramatic Arts in Manhattan.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:31:19 +0000, S Viemeister
> wrote:

>On 09/12/2020 15:41, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:02 +0000, S Viemeister
>>> On 09/12/2020 12:21, songbird wrote:
>>>> S Viemeister wrote:
>>>>> Yes, we all had to learn to use sabers. Unlike Olympic fencing, no
>>>>> protective gear was involved. There were only a couple of incidents
>>>>> involving bleeding...
>>>>
>>>> i would not go that route as i know how much of a possible
>>>> klutz i can be. falling on swords and all that...
>>>>
>>> Interestingly, the bleeding episodes only involved the men in the class
>>> - when they failed to follow the choreography laid out by the fencing
>>> master, a Hungarian emigre named Geza Gazdag. None of the women had any
>>> problems.
>>
>> BFA theater program I was in only had fencing training...I guess here
>> in the US they expected more Rostand and Dumas....
>>
>Ah, but this _was_ in the US! I studied at the American Academy of
>Dramatic Arts in Manhattan.


My kids went there for years when they were young for weekend classes!

By then I'd moved kit & kaboodle over the Hudson to NJ, but we were in
the city all the time. Wandering all over 4 of the 5 boros is one of
the things I miss most during the pandemic.

My program was in the US, too, but a Uni program with which I parted
ways when we disagreed about requirements....they insisted on one
production per semester and I had just gotten my Equity card and was
working already and begged them to use that as course fulfillment. Ah
well..

On 09/12/2020 20:54, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:31:19 +0000, S Viemeister
>> On 09/12/2020 15:41, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:02 +0000, S Viemeister
>>>> Interestingly, the bleeding episodes only involved the men in the class
>>>> - when they failed to follow the choreography laid out by the fencing
>>>> master, a Hungarian emigre named Geza Gazdag. None of the women had any
>>>> problems.
>>> BFA theater program I was in only had fencing training...I guess here
>>> in the US they expected more Rostand and Dumas....
>> Ah, but this _was_ in the US! I studied at the American Academy of
>> Dramatic Arts in Manhattan.
>
> My kids went there for years when they were young for weekend classes!
>
Younger sister did those weekend classes, too. I was in the full-time
'grown-up' program.

> My program was in the US, too, but a Uni program with which I parted
> ways when we disagreed about requirements....they insisted on one
> production per semester and I had just gotten my Equity card and was
> working already and begged them to use that as course fulfillment. Ah
> well..
>
There are a lot of idiots out there!

On 2020 Dec 8, , Sqwertz wrote
(in article >):

> ObFood: 'Big Night' - a 7.3 on IMDB. Now on Pluto TV.
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115678

And of course, "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" - a 7.6 on
IMDB. Now on Amazon.
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097108/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0>

leo

On 2020 Dec 8, , Cindy Hamilton wrote
(in >):

> Wasn't she the director's main squeeze or something like that?
>
> Anyway, she had to be able to pass for a boy.

I liked Gwyneth back then. Didn´t she give birth to an apple?

leo