I made a thread a few months ago about Shakespeare being (IMO) incomprehensible, so I don’t mean to start up a debate again.
But I was wondering if there were any DVDs / online videos of Shakespeare plays which had subtitles in modern English, to help make it more understandable?
Well, if they exist, they’re probably in Walmart’s Two-for-$5 bin.
I don’t know of any. I didn’t see your previous thread, but have you actually watched any good, modern, Shakespeare adaptations? Because in most of them, the on-screen action gives you context that will help you understand what they’re talking about.
When I was in high school (a long time ago), there did exist “modern” translations of the Bard. You might find those useful.
–Cliffy
Geez, I thought modern “translations” of Chaucer were pointlessly dumbed-down.
Shakespeare? Really?
ETA: I’m sorry, that sounds very rude. What I mean to say is that you can’t really modify it without breaking it. Annotations or glossaries can make the opaque bits come clear without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
When hearing those most wondrous words the Bard
Embellished, gilded, worked so much that I
Could little understand, thus I, perplexed,
Distinguished not the plot of Much Ado
Upon the screen. So I, but Four and Ten
Of Age that year, spent much the first act there
Confounded meekly. ‘til epiphany
Did strike upon my eager mind at last.
The context and the rhythm I did find
Made sense and meanings of the lines most fair
That obfuscated once did now become
A tapestry of color and of light
Both Brilliant and astounding, I did see
That he with paint of noun and brush of verb
Could draw his art with language most superb.
Subtitles:
When I first saw Much Ado About Nothing in the movie theater at age 14, I had never been exposed to the language before. For the first thirty minutes, I was all, “WTF?” Then, all of a sudden, “Wait… I can understand EVERYTHING!” It was awesome. I find it’s rhythm and context, and practice.
You can read the modern text then watch the movie.
Here’s Romeo and Juliet
In another thread, Chefguy quotes the following:
How would you subtitle something like that?
“You suck!”
Kinda loses something, doesn’t it?
Going the other direction, the special edition of Monty Python and the Holy Grail has a Shakespeare subtitles option (for"people who don’t like Python), taken from Henry IV, Part II.
I gotta admit, I graduated with a degree in English Literature. And for the life of me I can’t appreciate Shakespeare. I only enjoy Hamlet because I had to read it no less than 4 times between high school and college, and then actually watch the play. And see the Mel Gibson movie.
It’s good. It’s really good. But I guess you have to be really into that kind of writing. I am most certainly not.
It’s rather utilitarian but if the original makes your eyes glaze over, this is a tad more approachable.
I’ve found that just using the regular closed captioning subtitles can help a great deal with comprehension. But then again, I listened to too much loud music in my misspent youth. And I live in an overly active home.
Also, keep in mind that Shakespeare is drenched in puns and sexual jokes. Romeo and Juliet literally is as dirty as South Park. We just don’t think about it because the language sounds so old-timey we figure it must be clean and that people back then didn’t write adult stuff. That wasn’t the case. There is nothing new under the sun.
“Use every man after his deserts, and who should 'scape whipping?”
I can’t think of a better way to say it.
Not to mention Hamlet using a word to his ex-girlfriend in the presence of the King and Queen that Ed Zotti won’t let us use in the Pit:
[QUOTE=Prince Hamlet]
Do you think I meant country matters?
[/QUOTE]
Actually I think it would be a great idea, especially for high school students.
Yes, Shakespeare’s language is beautiful, but anybody who claims they understand every single thing the character is saying is either an expert who has done at least doctoral level research in Elizabethan literature and linguistics, or is lying to sound smarter, or is self deluded. Or maybe it’s just me: I have studied English history at the graduate level and I love Shakespeare and I don’t think most would consider me either unintelligent or wholly unsophisticated and I’ll freely admit I sometimes have to research some of his dialogue.
The above- an off-the-top-of-my-head remembered exchange- may make sense if you read it, but even then it’s such a different use of word and structure, and it’s probably said relatively fast, often by actors in Scottish accent. Having
as an option would help.
If you understood the original then good on you, pat yourself on the belly with a wet trout and smile into your kerchief, but I guarantee there are exchanges you wouldn’t get. There are many words you’ve heard in Shakespeare that do not mean what they mean now (e.g. awesome, wonderful), or words that did have the same meanings but had other meanings as well.
I wouldn’t even stop at subtitles. I think it’d be great to have a pop-up feature (like All Roads Lead to Rome on the HBO’s ROME dvds) that gives you pertinent info.
Example: even college students who love English history can get lost studying the Wars of the Roses (yes, I know, they weren’t called that then). Every non-fiction book and every novel has to have genealogies because it gets confusing as all hell- “Whose mother is that?” “Is that his sister or his niece?” “What relation was her husband to him?”
One of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare is in RICHARD III, Act 4, scene 4.
There’s an exchange between the Duchess of York, Queen Elizabeth, and Queen Margaret. The first time watcher of RICHARD III knows the following from the play:
The Duchess of York is Richard III’s mother (though she hates him) and was the mother of Edward IV. Elizabeth began the play as the queen of King Edward and mother of two sons; Edward is now dead of [more or less] natural causes and her small sons have just been murdered. Richard had earlier connived to have Edward, the Duke of Clarence killed, and at the early part of the play he killed another Prince Edward and has since married his wife. That’s already a lot to keep up with.
Unless the viewer has also watched HENRY VI, part 1 & part 2 & part 3, and chances are they haven’t, they probably have no idea who Queen Margaret is or what she’s doing hanging around the castle or what all of the following is about:
I think it would mean loads to have pop-ups explaining:
Margaret’s husband was King Henry VI, aka ‘Harry’. He was insane. Margaret ruled in his place. She and Harry had one, and only one, child, Prince Edward, whom she adored. He was the Prince killed at the beginning of the play.
The Duchess is the widow of Richard, Duke of York. He led a rebellion (more than one actually) against his cousin “Harry”. He was taken prisoner in battle, along with his second son, Edmund, the Earl of Rutland (younger brother of Edward IV, older brother of Richard III and Clarence). Margaret refused to ransom them- she instead had them beheaded and their heads piked on York Castle.
Henry VI was later captured by the Duchess’s son/Elizabeth’s husband Duke Edward. Margaret and her son, Prince Edward, led the war against Duke Edward, Duke of York, in ‘Harry’s’ stead. Duke Edward had himself crowned king while Harry was still alive, but kept Harry locked up as a royal hostage.
Prince Edward was killed in battle (at the beginning). He had no children and no brothers- there were no other heirs to Henry VI. At this point Henry VI “died of natural causes”, though nobody- not even Shakespeare- really believed that. Harry was probably killed on orders of Edward IV, though in HENRY VI Part 3 it was Richard that did this deed.
Thus, all three women have lost an Edward: the Duchess her son and Elizabeth her husband, and Margaret her own son. The Duchess also lost her own Richard to Margaret. It’s a convoluted pile of bodies to explain and some concise “See, what had happened was…” would definitely help those watching it for the first time and would probably help those who’ve seen it before or seen Henry VI.1, Henry VI.2, and Henry VI.3, but need a little reminder. Also, that Margaret is basically saying “desire to see you scream is what’s kept me alive and now you’re fucking it all up by making me feel sad!” might need to be spelled out to some who aren’t following “now I cloy me with beholding it”.
Next, a simply brilliant scene. It begins with
Curse can mean “place a spell on”, or spout profanity at, both in our own time and in Shakespeare’s. The first time watching it it might be interesting to know that here it is more synonymous with “hate”, as in “Margaret, you are so bitter and hate filled that your hate gives you strength to stay alive. Stay here and teach me how to do that”, or basically, “Help me embrace the dark side”.
And Margaret gives the greatest recipe for hatred and all consuming bitterness in all of English literature:
Those words are fairly self explanatory, but I think explaining what Elizabeth is asking Margaret and their prior relationship makes the scene more intense and more poignant. Here are three women who put aside their differences and their old feuds and their hatred for each other for a moment and actually have, if only for a moment, sympatico and bonding through finding common ground and grieving together. What makes it so brilliant a moment is that they do it NOT by saying “you’ve lost loves, I’ve lost loves, haven’t we hurt enough? Let’s begin to heal!” [and now a word from Massengill]- they bond and find new strength through hatred and bitterness. It’s- if only to me- almost unspeakably brilliant, it’s like Shakespeare snuck in an amoral moral: "You really want to bring peace between enemies? Don’t just give them a common enemy, but blacken that enemy- forging hate through taking what was already pretty damned bad and embellishing it, focusing it, putting aside ration of any kind- I’ve wondered, and perhaps it’s just me, if this scene might not have been Shakespeare’s apologia for what he knew was a bullshit rendition of historical events (I’m buying the favor of Elizabeth I and the gentry by playing to their own emotions and making Richard ‘fouler than he was’ for a common good.)
Anyway, I digress, but the point is that I think, especially to people who
1- Aren’t accustomed to Elizabethan language to begin with
2- Aren’t that well versed in actual English history or
3- Even if they devour English history aren’t well versed in Shakespeare’s fictionalized version of English history in general
4- Aren’t well versed in Shakespeare’s other War of the Roses plays on which this builds
5- Don’t know how much Shakespeare experimented with language as it existed then
6- Don’t know how many words were completely different then than now in meaning
any help you can provide would be great and help introduce somebody new to not just a great writer but a great philosopher and psychological/historical/political commentator.
Actually I think it would be a great idea as an optional DVD feature, especially for high school students.
Yes, Shakespeare’s language is beautiful, but anybody who claims they understand every single thing the character is saying is either an expert who has done at least doctoral level research in Elizabethan literature and linguistics, or is lying to sound smarter, or is self deluded. Or maybe it’s just me: I have studied English history at the graduate level and I love Shakespeare and I don’t think most would consider me either unintelligent or wholly unsophisticated and I’ll freely admit I sometimes have to research some of his dialogue.
The above- an off-the-top-of-my-head remembered exchange- may make sense if you read it, but even then it’s such a different use of word and structure, and it’s probably said relatively fast, often by actors in Scottish accent. Having
as an option would help.
If you understood the original then good on you, pat yourself on the belly with a wet trout and smile into your kerchief, but I guarantee there are exchanges you wouldn’t get. There are many words you’ve heard in Shakespeare that do not mean what they mean now (e.g. awesome, wonderful), or words that did have the same meanings but had other meanings as well.
I wouldn’t even stop at subtitles. I think it’d be great to have a pop-up feature (like All Roads Lead to Rome on the HBO’s ROME dvds) that gives you pertinent info.
Example: even college students who love English history can get lost studying the Wars of the Roses (yes, I know, they weren’t called that then). Every non-fiction book and every novel has to have genealogies because it gets confusing as all hell- “Whose mother is that?” “Is that his sister or his niece?” “What relation was her husband to him?”
One of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare is in RICHARD III, Act 4, scene 4.
There’s an exchange between the Duchess of York, Queen Elizabeth, and Queen Margaret. The first time watcher of RICHARD III knows the following from the play:
The Duchess of York is Richard III’s mother (though she hates him) and was the mother of Edward IV. Elizabeth began the play as the queen of King Edward and mother of two sons; Edward is now dead of [more or less] natural causes and her small sons have just been murdered. Richard had earlier connived to have Edward, the Duke of Clarence killed, and at the early part of the play he killed another Prince Edward and has since married his wife. That’s already a lot to keep up with.
Unless the viewer has also watched HENRY VI, part 1 & part 2 & part 3, and chances are they haven’t, they probably have no idea who Queen Margaret is or what she’s doing hanging around the castle or what all of the following is about:
I think it would mean loads to have pop-ups explaining:
Margaret’s husband was King Henry VI, aka ‘Harry’. He was insane. Margaret ruled in his place. She and Harry had one, and only one, child, Prince Edward, whom she adored. He was the Prince killed at the beginning of the play.
The Duchess is the widow of Richard, Duke of York. He led a rebellion (more than one actually) against his cousin “Harry”. He was taken prisoner in battle, along with his second son, Edmund, the Earl of Rutland (younger brother of Edward IV, older brother of Richard III and Clarence). Margaret refused to ransom them- she instead had them beheaded and their heads piked on York Castle.
Henry VI was later captured by the Duchess’s son/Elizabeth’s husband Duke Edward. Margaret and her son, Prince Edward, led the war against Duke Edward, Duke of York, in ‘Harry’s’ stead. Duke Edward had himself crowned king while Harry was still alive, but kept Harry locked up as a royal hostage.
Prince Edward was killed in battle (at the beginning). He had no children and no brothers- there were no other heirs to Henry VI. At this point Henry VI “died of natural causes”, though nobody- not even Shakespeare- really believed that. Harry was probably killed on orders of Edward IV, though in HENRY VI Part 3 it was Richard that did this deed.
Thus, all three women have lost an Edward: the Duchess her son and Elizabeth her husband, and Margaret her own son. The Duchess also lost her own Richard to Margaret. It’s a convoluted pile of bodies to explain and some concise “See, what had happened was…” would definitely help those watching it for the first time and would probably help those who’ve seen it before or seen Henry VI.1, Henry VI.2, and Henry VI.3, but need a little reminder. Also, that Margaret is basically saying “desire to see you scream is what’s kept me alive and now you’re fucking it all up by making me feel sad!” might need to be spelled out to some who aren’t following “now I cloy me with beholding it”.
Next, a simply brilliant scene. It begins with
Curse can mean “place a spell on”, or spout profanity at, both in our own time and in Shakespeare’s. The first time watching it it might be interesting to know that here it is more synonymous with “hate”, as in “Margaret, you are so bitter and hate filled that your hate gives you strength to stay alive. Stay here and teach me how to do that”, or basically, “Help me embrace the dark side”.
And Margaret gives the greatest recipe for hatred and all consuming bitterness in all of English literature:
Those words are fairly self explanatory, but I think explaining what Elizabeth is asking Margaret and their prior relationship makes the scene more intense and more poignant. Here are three women who put aside their differences and their old feuds and their hatred for each other for a moment and actually have, if only for a moment, sympatico and bonding through finding common ground and grieving together. What makes it so brilliant a moment is that they do it NOT by saying “you’ve lost loves, I’ve lost loves, haven’t we hurt enough? Let’s begin to heal!” [and now a word from Massengill]- they bond and find new strength through hatred and bitterness. It’s- if only to me- almost unspeakably brilliant, it’s like Shakespeare snuck in an amoral moral: "You really want to bring peace between enemies? Don’t just give them a common enemy, but blacken that enemy- forging hate through taking what was already pretty damned bad and embellishing it, focusing it, putting aside ration of any kind- I’ve wondered, and perhaps it’s just me, if this scene might not have been Shakespeare’s apologia for what he knew was a bullshit rendition of historical events (I’m buying the favor of Elizabeth I and the gentry by playing to their own emotions and making Richard ‘fouler than he was’ for a common good.)
Anyway, I digress, but the point is that I think, especially to people who
1- aren’t accustomed to Elizabethan language to begin with
2- Aren’t that well versed in actual English history or
3- Even if they devour English history aren’t well versed in Shakespeare’s fictionalized version of English history in general
4- Aren’t well versed in Shakespeare’s other War of the Roses plays on which this builds
5- Don’t know how much Shakespeare experimented with language as it existed then
6- Don’t know how many words were completely different then than now in meaning
any help you can provide would be great and help introduce somebody new to not just a great writer but a great philosopher and psychological/historical/political commentator.
Heh. Isaac Asimov, who wrote some very good explanations of Shakespeare, had a theory that the English language has changed a lot less quickly since the Bard’s time than it had before then because somehow we, as a society, don’t ever want to have his works become complete gibberish…
A little late for this post, but if anyone is still looking… Bardsubs.com there are 3 done and posting a new one every couple months