# Are there any Shakespeare films with modern subtitles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 6, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957 "2012-03-06T19:17:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kiyoshi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e19adc/32.png) [@Kiyoshi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiyoshi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/1 "2012-03-06T19:17:15Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/2 "2012-03-06T19:49:50Z")
Well, if they exist, they’re probably in Walmart’s Two-for-$5 bin. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/3 "2012-03-07T16:21:45Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/4 "2012-03-07T16:55:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/5 "2012-03-07T18:45:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Evin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@Evin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evin)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/6 "2012-03-07T18:45:27Z")
You can read the modern text then watch the movie. [http://nfs.sparknotes.com/](http://nfs.sparknotes.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/7 "2012-03-07T20:02:26Z")
Here’s Romeo and Juliet [http://uninteresting.myby.co.uk/noeffort/romjul.htm](http://uninteresting.myby.co.uk/noeffort/romjul.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/8 "2012-03-07T21:11:43Z")
In another thread, **Chefguy** quotes the following: > [@](#): > > A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition. > King Lear (2.2.14-24) How would you subtitle something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/9 "2012-03-07T21:30:27Z")
“You suck!” Kinda loses something, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/10 "2012-03-08T21:48:27Z")
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_. ---
**Author:** ![Sister\_Vigilante](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Sister\_Vigilante](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sister_Vigilante)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/11 "2012-03-09T04:17:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/12 "2012-03-09T04:40:11Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > In another thread, **Chefguy** quotes the following: > How would you subtitle something like that? > [@No Fear Shakespeare](#): > > You’re a lowlife, a rascal who eats leftover scraps. You’re an ignoble, arrogant, shallow, vulgar, pretentious, conceited, filthy third-rate servant who thinks he’s something special. You’re a cowardly lawyer-loving bastard; a vain, brown-nosing, prissy scoundrel who’d pimp himself out to advance his career; a bag lady. You’re nothing but a lowlife, a beggar, a coward, and a pimp, the son and heir of a mutt bitch. I’ll beat you until you whine and cry if you deny a bit of this. It’s rather utilitarian but if the original makes your eyes glaze over, this is a tad more approachable. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus\_alba](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quercus_alba/32/4061_2.png) [@Quercus\_alba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus_alba)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/13 "2012-03-09T04:44:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/14 "2012-03-09T21:49:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Civil\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d78d45/32.png) [@Civil\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Civil_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/15 "2012-03-10T01:52:47Z")
“Use every man after his deserts, and who should 'scape whipping?” I can’t think of a better way to say it. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/16 "2012-03-10T03:00:34Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > … Romeo and Juliet literally is as dirty as South Park. … 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] ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/17 "2012-03-10T03:09:09Z")
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. > [@](#): > > SIWARD/ Had he his hurts before? > > ROSS/ Ay, on the front. > > SIWARD/ Why then, God’s soldier be he! 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 > [@](#): > > “Were his wounds in front?” > “Yes” > “Then he died brave, not running” 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: > [@](#): > > QUEEN MARGARET > > ``` > If ancient sorrow be most reverend, > Give mine the benefit of seniory, > And let my woes frown on the upper hand. > If sorrow can admit society, > > Sitting down with them > Tell o'er your woes again by viewing mine: > I had an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him; > I had a Harry, till a Richard kill'd him: > Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him; > Thou hadst a Richard, till a Richard killed him; > > ``` > > DUCHESS OF YORK > > ``` > I had a Richard too, and thou didst kill him; > I had a Rutland too, thou holp'st to kill him. > > ``` > > QUEEN MARGARET > > ``` > Thou hadst a Clarence too, and Richard kill'd him. > From forth the kennel of thy womb hath crept > A hell-hound that doth hunt us all to death: > That dog, that had his teeth before his eyes, > To worry lambs and lap their gentle blood, > That foul defacer of God's handiwork, > That excellent grand tyrant of the earth, > That reigns in galled eyes of weeping souls, > Thy womb let loose, to chase us to our graves. > O upright, just, and true-disposing God, > How do I thank thee, that this carnal cur > Preys on the issue of his mother's body, > And makes her pew-fellow with others' moan! > > ``` > > DUCHESS OF YORK > > ``` > O Harry's wife, triumph not in my woes! > God witness with me, I have wept for thine. > > ``` > > QUEEN MARGARET > > ``` > Bear with me; I am hungry for revenge, > And now I cloy me with beholding it. > Thy Edward he is dead, that stabb'd my Edward: > Thy other Edward dead, to quit my Edward; > Young York he is but boot, because both they > Match not the high perfection of my loss: > > ``` 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 > [@](#): > > O, thou well-skilled in curses, stay awhile, > And teach me how to curse mine enemies 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: > [@](#): > > Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days; > Compare dead happiness with living woe; > Think that thy babes were fairer than they were, > And he that slew them fouler than he is: > Bettering thy loss makes the bad causer worse: > Revolving this will teach thee how to curse. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/18 "2012-03-10T03:13:56Z")
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. > [@](#): > > SIWARD/ Had he his hurts before? > > ROSS/ Ay, on the front. > > SIWARD/ Why then, God’s soldier be he! 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 > [@](#): > > “Were his wounds in front?” > “Yes” > “Then he died brave, not running” 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: > [@](#): > > QUEEN MARGARET > > ``` > If ancient sorrow be most reverend, > Give mine the benefit of seniory, > And let my woes frown on the upper hand. > If sorrow can admit society, > > Sitting down with them > Tell o'er your woes again by viewing mine: > I had an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him; > I had a Harry, till a Richard kill'd him: > Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him; > Thou hadst a Richard, till a Richard killed him; > > ``` > > DUCHESS OF YORK > > ``` > I had a Richard too, and thou didst kill him; > I had a Rutland too, thou holp'st to kill him. > > ``` > > QUEEN MARGARET > > ``` > Thou hadst a Clarence too, and Richard kill'd him. > From forth the kennel of thy womb hath crept > A hell-hound that doth hunt us all to death: > That dog, that had his teeth before his eyes, > To worry lambs and lap their gentle blood, > That foul defacer of God's handiwork, > That excellent grand tyrant of the earth, > That reigns in galled eyes of weeping souls, > Thy womb let loose, to chase us to our graves. > O upright, just, and true-disposing God, > How do I thank thee, that this carnal cur > Preys on the issue of his mother's body, > And makes her pew-fellow with others' moan! > > ``` > > DUCHESS OF YORK > > ``` > O Harry's wife, triumph not in my woes! > God witness with me, I have wept for thine. > > ``` > > QUEEN MARGARET > > ``` > Bear with me; I am hungry for revenge, > And now I cloy me with beholding it. > Thy Edward he is dead, that stabb'd my Edward: > Thy other Edward dead, to quit my Edward; > Young York he is but boot, because both they > Match not the high perfection of my loss: > > ``` 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 > [@](#): > > O, thou well-skilled in curses, stay awhile, > And teach me how to curse mine enemies 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: > [@](#): > > Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days; > Compare dead happiness with living woe; > Think that thy babes were fairer than they were, > And he that slew them fouler than he is: > Bettering thy loss makes the bad causer worse: > Revolving this will teach thee how to curse. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/19 "2012-03-13T16:08:07Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Bardsubs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aca169/32.png) [@Bardsubs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bardsubs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957/20 "2022-05-19T08:28:13Z")
A little late for this post, but if anyone is still looking… [Bardsubs.com](http://Bardsubs.com) there are 3 done and posting a new one every couple months [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-shakespeare-films-with-modern-subtitles/614957.md?page=2)