Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [TheCostumersManifesto] rosaries and crosses

Expand Messages
  • Pierre & Sandy Pettinger
    ... A crucifix does not a rosary make. Modern Bishops and cardinals do wear a crucifix around their neck. They do not wear rosaries in the same way. And just
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 20, 2007
      At 10:13 AM 3/19/2007, you wrote:

      >There is also something else to consider.. how much of that ausience
      >really doent care?
      >I mean I am jewish am I really going to care what teh costume is if
      >the story line is good, and how would I know one way ort the other
      >if its correct.
      >I ahve seen local parish bishops from the local dicoesewearing
      >rosaries as chest pieces........

      A crucifix does not a rosary make. Modern Bishops and cardinals do
      wear a crucifix around their neck. They do not wear rosaries in the same way.

      And just to clarify nomenclature a cross is just the upright and
      transverse pieces. A crucifix has a corpus (the body of Christ) on it.

      Pierre

      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: Sylvia Rognstad
      >To:
      ><mailto:TheCostumersManifesto%40yahoogroups.com>TheCostumersManifesto@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:40 AM
      >Subject: Re: [TheCostumersManifesto] rosaries and crosses
      >
      >I think it depends on a lot of things. In this case, it would be just
      >as easy and correct for the priest to wear a cross on a chain or a
      >thong, I think, and that wouldn't offend anyone. In general, if it's
      >going to be distracting to a lot of people, I probably would opt for
      >what they're more comfortable with, even if it's somewhat historically
      >incorrect. In theatre, we make a lot of choices that are not totally
      >period all the time, in terms of the cut of garments, for instance. We
      >may modify the style to suit an actor's body, change the colors for the
      >sake of overall harmony, etc. etc. In the past it used to be easier to
      >get away with this, because you didn't have reenactors and other groups
      >of costumers who study costume history and try to make sure whatever
      >they are doing is absolutely historically correct. Nowadays there is
      >that critical element in the audience, so it seems like someone is
      >always going to be offended no matter what you do.
      >
      >Sylvia
      >
      >On Mar 18, 2007, at 9:14 PM,
      ><mailto:lanorte1%40aol.com>lanorte1@... wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > In a message dated 3/18/2007 2:09:30 PM Central Standard Time,
      > > <mailto:sylvia%40ntw.net>sylvia@...
      > > writes:
      > >
      > > Thank you. It sounds like, if one can trust Wikipedia, it would have
      > > been ok in the 1400s when our play is set. I do wonder, however, if
      > > Catholic audiences today might resent it, not knowing the history.
      > >
      > > Sylvia
      > >
      > > That's an interesting topic - how do you deal with it when you do
      > > something
      > > which is historically correct, but to a contemporary audience looks
      > > like a
      > > mistake? Do you opt for accuracy, or what will be incorrect, but less
      > > distracting
      > > to the audience?
      > >
      > > Donna

      "Those Who Fail To Learn History
      Are Doomed to Repeat It;
      Those Who Fail To Learn History Correctly --
      Why They Are Simply Doomed.

      Achemdro'hm
      "The Illusion of Historical Fact"
      -- C.Y. 4971

      Andromeda
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.