Why? Because he wasn’t meant to be ‘read’. He was meant to be watched and listened to. The fact that he stands up so well as literature is secondary to the fact that his plays are entertainment first and foremost. Can you picture lit classes 500 years from now dissecting screenplays? Same thing! Any other thoughts on this out there?
[huge sigh of relief]
Oh, good, I’m SO glad it isn’t just me. Want a Tootsie Pop?
I hate Shakespeare on the same level. I HATE reading him, and would often grumble, “Why do we have to read this? Why do people LOVE to read Shakespeare? I can’t understand him and I’m a pretty literate person!” the last I said this was no more than two months ago when we started Macbeth and ended it a few weeks later. We had to do boring tests and essays on it. But then we watched “Much Ado About Nothing” and I enjoyed that movie. Why high schools require Shakespeare to be read, I have no idea.
From,
Anake
Love one! What flavors you got?
Anake - I actually don’t hate Shakespeare. Hell, I’m a theatre person myself, and have worked on about five different shows. But it is so much easier to understand when watched. Another good one to see, if you get the chance, is ‘Twelth Night’ that was on PBS ‘Great Performances’ a couple of years ago, with Helen Hunt and Kyra Sedgwick. A GREAT production of the show, and funnier than hell (and a beautiful set, as well…rain, deep pools of water… and on an actual stage, NOT a soundstage.
That’s Shakespeare shows… I’ve actually done ALOT more than five shows in my LIFE… (OK lawoot, PREVIEW the damn post!)
You are sooo right, lawoo! The archaic language and references can make it heavy going, so much so that the beauty of the language is lost.
I had a great English teacher who bullied some AV equipment away from the coaching…er, history staff and showed us some performances. I remember one was recording of one of Richard Burton’s stage performances; b&w, limited camera movement but pure magic.
It breathed the vitality into the plays, and then Will becomes an addiction.
Veb
:eek:
Note to DRY: stay out of this thread! Danger! Danger!
:eek:
I know a guy who used to hate Shakespeare. He said the language was too difficult to understand.
We pointed out that he was perfectly happy to learn Spanish to sing salsa music, and happy to learn Ebonics to sing rap music.
Once he learned the jargon, he loved Shakespeare.
I think Shakespreare is perfectly readable, but it should be read aloud. I had a great Shakespeare teacher in high school who had us all take parts and read aloud to the class, stopping frequently to discuss the what was happening and the meaning of the archaic terms. By the end of the semester we could all read it pretty smoothly and understand most of it. Even now, when I read Shakespeare, I make my husband read it aloud with me and discuss possible interpretations. It’s actually a lot of fun, and we have our most enjoyable arguments that way.
“We are at the stake, And bay’d about with many enemies; And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear, Millions of mischiefs”
–Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene i
“I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none.”
–Macbeth, Act 1, Scene vii
**
**
“Done to death by slanderous tongues”
–Much Ado About Nothing, Act 5, Scene iii
**
“He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument”
–Love’s Labor Lost, Act 5, Scene i
**
“I am not only witty in myself, but the cause that wit is in other men”
–King Henry IV, Part 2, Act 1, Scene ii
**
“They have been at a great feast of languages, and stolen the scraps.”
–Love’s Labour’s Lost, Act 5, Scene i
**
“O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumbshows and noise: I would have such a fellow whipped for o’erdoing Termagant; it out-herods Herod” 
–Hamlet, Act 3, Scene ii
**
“I had rather be a kitten and cry mew Than one of these same metre ballad mongers” 
–King Henry IV, Part 1, Act 3, Scene i
**
“O heaven! were man But constant, he were perfect”
–The Two Gentleman of Verona, Act 5, Scene iv
**
“For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech, To stir men’s blood: I only speak right on”
–Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene ii
[sub]No offense was meant by any of the jests above. My serious opinion is that the reading Shakespeare is a bit of an acquired taste: I, too had trouble with the language. For most people, however, I truly believe that, once you become accustomed to the archaic language, it’s well worth the effort.[/sub]
I love watching Shakespeare. I hate reading it. It’s just irritating. I’m not sure totally why. Some authors just do that to me, modern ones included.
Well, I have to admit being one of the freaks that loves to read Shakespeare. If you are willing to take a little time to learn the vocabulary, it is wonderful literature. I recommend a good modern printing, perhaps one edited by A. L. Rowse, one of the best modern editors/experts on Shakespeare. I regularly read Twelfth Night, Hamlet, The Tempest and others purely for the beautiful language and engaging, if improbable, plots and the wonderful characterizations as well.
[sub]Thanks for the heads up, DRY, I haven’t had time to check out any of the other forums lately. It’s all I can do to keep up with my friends in MPSIMS. [/sub]
Another point: If you see the play first, you will more likely better understand the context of the various scenes, and be able to grasp the dialogue/language more readily. (My opinion, anyway.)
**
[sub]You’re welcome[/sub]
Actually I’m one of those odd people who likes to read Shakespeare as well… I just enjoy it even more when I watch it or read it aloud. I do that actually I’ll sit reading R&J and read the words to myself aloud or just quote from memory (what I know of it) I think the reason I enjoy reading Shakespeare is because I ‘discovered’ him in Elementary (something like Grade 5 or 6 or maybe it was 7) we went to see a play of Taming of the Shrew and I enjoyed it so much I went out and read some others (not a lot of the others but some)
My English teacher this year is really good in respects to teaching plays. We don’t just read it we are given parts and we ‘read’ the play. For Man of La Mancha (which we are doing now) he even has a tape of the songs and plays them at the appropriate times. When we did Much Ado About Nothing we watched the movie bit by bit and read the play as we went. We also discussed what the words might mean etc which I really liked.
Anake I think they do it like that because they don’t want us sitting around watching movies all the time and they want us to get a better understanding of it. You might miss some of the words or something when watching the movie but you can always glance at the book again.
Reading Shakespeare’s plays – I mean really getting a feel for the texts – helps provide a baseline from which you can explore.
You can explore into the texts through the criticism, you can explore outside of the texts through stage productions, or you can even go totally wild through film. But it all starts with the texts.
Without a fundamental comfort with the language, it is not possible to begin to grasp the richness of Shakespeare’s playing with words. Part of developing this comfort incluedes learning how to read.
Here are som personal favs in approximate chronological order, and quick reasons why I liked them. Note that the reasons differ, for each approach is a fresh approach, but a common theme is the words.
-
Textual analysis under Northrop Frye (early 80s?). This fellow was one of the top critics ever – yes, ever as in of all time, and Shakespeare was high on his list, so you can imagine what studying under him was like. If context is everything, then Frye brings out layer after layer after layer.
-
Paul Mazursky’s film The Tempest, with John Cassavetes in the lead (early 80s?). Cassavetes led a very solid cast in an insightful interpretation, but what really stood out was the camera work – how could one ever forget the external pan up of the interior, looking into the cubicles of Cassavetes’ home just as the text was looking into the recesses of his mind. For one of the first times, the camera work in a Shakespeare film paralled and complimented the text rather than simply presented it.
-
Toronto Free Theatre’s stage production of Hamlet (mid-80s?) with R.H. Thompson. Thompson is one of Canada’s top actors, but he seldom finds vehicles worthy of him. Well, this time he did. For a brief time he brought the audience inside the mind of Hamlet, not by overplaying, as is common for Shakespearian productions, but rather through underplaying. Thompson’s subtle approach combined with a tiny theatre and miminal sets made for a very introspective play. This production was run at the same time as Stratford’s classical rendition of Hamlet with Colm Feore’s masterful lead, so Shakespeare fans had a bit of a feast that season.
-
Richard Greenaway’s film Prospero’s Books (early 90s?). I have a soft spot for The Tempest, and delighted in the delicate balance and deep texure of Greenaway’s otherworldly sets and cinematography combined with Sir John Guilgud’s interpretation and delivery. This was the Shakespearian Guildgud at his finest, for his words are what carry the show and keep drawing the viewer back inside him despite the marvelous, over the top production.
-
Richard Loncraine’s film of Richard III (mid 90s?). Either you love it or you hate it. Loncraine Bowdlerizes the text, but at the same time brings out the spirit in a truly dark interpetation. By the end of this one, you want to go out and kick some helpless thing.
Well, as you can see, texts only made it once on the top five list, so at first one might think that texts are not that important, but I suggest that if it were not for the firm grounding in the texts, I would not have enjoyed the theatre and film productions nearly as much.
So get out there and read the plays. Read them out loud with your friends. Read them along with audio tapes. Read them along with videos. Read read read read read. And then read some more. Catch all the plays and films you can, and enjoy them for all they are worth, but don’t cut yourself short by not being comfortable with the language of the texts.
Dry and Trouble are both missing the point!
Even Shakespeare didn’t expect his plays to be read! He very carefully oversaw the printing of his sonnets, but the first printings of his plays were pirated.
Yes some of his plays have very beuatiful language in them. However, having personally worked professionally on 30 different productions for the Houston Shakespeare Festival, another 19 at other venues, and 8 in college, I find that reading his plays is like talking about sex. It may be better than nothing, but nothing compares to the real thing.
Sorry, you have hit a pet peeve of mine. I think that “English” teachers have spoiled shakespeare for many young people. They insist in considering it “Literature” and not theatre. THey only succeed in turning them off. He didn’t write “Literature”, he wrote entertainments. Murder, Sex, Violence, Scatalogical Humour, Ghosts, Witches, Magic, Adultery,… and that is just in his Tragedies! In my Intro to Theatre classes (college level)my students groan when I tell them we will be watching a Shakespeare film in class. Invariably they are suprised to learn they like it. Normally it ranks near the top in my year end poll of what they saw. I find it sad that they have been trained in high school to hate Shakespeare. ANd it makes me angry that it happens!
Sorry about the typos. My keyboard is sticking. Need to get another.
Um, no, I don’t think so. I am well aware that they are first and foremost Drama with a capital D. However, they can be enjoyed perfectly well as literature by someone who takes the trouble to learn the “language”.
I am with you though, on teachers who spoil Shakespeare for their students. I was fortunate enough to have teachers who brought Shakespeare to life, though. We read aloud, listened to recordings, saw videos, and put on Readers’ Theater type productions of our own. I have a deep and abiding love for Shakespeare both as Drama and Literature and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be enjoyed BOTH ways.
I respectfully disagree.
I do see your point, but the fact that Shakespeare did not expect his plays to be read certainly does not invalidate the proposition that said plays are worth reading. You yourself agree that the plays have beautiful language in them.
If your argument is that Shakespeare provides better entertainment than he does literature, I certainly agree with that (as does TroubleAgain). If you’re saying that he’s “overrated” as a literary source, I might even agree with that. But to say that his plays are not worth reading? I can’t agree.
**
I understand where you’re coming from, here. Although I’m not sure that teachers are spoiling Shakespeare for students by treating his works as “Literature” as opposed to “Theatre”. (I’m not necessarily saying that I disagree, either.)
Personally, the first time I read one of Shakespeare’s plays, I wasn’t impressed. In my case, I suspect I was too young to develop much of an interest, and the archaic language certainly did not help.
A film probably would have helped, but it probably would have helped several other literary works that left me cold as well. (I got through about a dozen pages of The Great Gatsby)
So I can certainly see your point here, as well.
Watch 'em FIRST. THEN read them. It can be VERY educational… especilly when you realize how many liberties many directors take with the plays, dialogue-wise. When we did ‘Hamlet’ back in my college days (I was the stage manager) the entire cast was rerading an American ‘translation’, but the Man playing Hamlet (an Equity actor, hired as a ‘guest artist’ by the college) used the original. Kind of confusing.
As kind of a hijack to my own thread, how many theatre people do we have here… and what do you do? I started out as an actor, but moved backstage in college (although I do still keep my hand in onstage every couple of years or so). Currently, I’m the Scenic Designer/Technical Director at a small college.