Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!ll1!cej
From: cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Re: "Presently" ?= "Now"
Message-ID: <453@ll1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Oct-86 01:03:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ll1.453
Posted: Tue Oct 21 01:03:31 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Oct-86 06:04:07 EDT
References: <3489@utcsri.UUCP> <2579@ihlpg.UUCP> <12092@watnot.UUCP> <2580@ihlpg.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: No Place Special
Lines: 31

> 	A story that illustrates British  linguistic snobbery is
> told by Alistair Cooke (I think - I'm not 100% sure  I remember
> the source) is of a play performed in London where the part of
> Napoleon Buonaparte was played by an American actor.  Most critics
> lambasted  the play, saying how ludicrous it was to have Napoleon
> speaking with an American accent.  It was not until a week later
> that a single letter appeared in the newspaper pointing out that
> it was no more ludicrous than Napoleon speaking with a British
> accent, since Napoleon actually spoke French! 
> -- 
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

	From the little work I have in community theater, I would
tend to say that the casting of the American might have been a poor 
choice.  Since in London a British accent is what the British expect
to hear, it would not seem strange to see a play in which all the
actors spoke with a British accent, no matter who they were
portraying.  However, if the single actor in the play without a
British accent, the American, is playing Napoleon with an American
accent, then I can see how that might be distracting, and take away
something from his character, and the play. 

	Now, if he used a French accent, or the actor in question
had been French, I would think the critics would have never
mentioned it.


		I still can't believe people get pay for acting.


...ihnp4!ll1!cej			Llewellyn Jones