Seriously. You’d think after A Winter’s Tale he would realize that the whole “Hermione is chaste” business was played out.
Daniel
If I was asked the question on the street I would say Timon of Athens or Titus Andronicus (which has some REALLY bad writing, plotting, and characterization)…but this thread has made me remember how painful Two Gents was to sit though, so I am changing my stock answer. No matter how bad a tragedy is, it is never half as bad as a bad comedy, and that’s what Two Gentlemen of Verona is, a very bad comedy.
I’d call it a tossup between Two Gents and 1 Henry IV, but there are a few I haven’t seen or read.
Personal tossup between Pericles and The Comedy of Errors, blech.
The Comedy of Errors is funny if you see it performed by the Flying Karamazov Brothers. Every character does his/her lines while juggling. Truly demented.
Henry VI, not IV. Part 1, though.
Put me down for King John. I also thought *Titus *was pretty cool. It’s a Roman revenge tragedy, so it’s not supposed to be like *Hamlet *or MacBeth
I can’t let that pass: the Chorus supplies the bombastic jingoism, but its grandiloquence is invariably immediately and snidely undermined by the grubby or mocking reality of the early scenes of each Act.
The prologue apologises for not being able to adequately depict the glorious and titanic struggle of two mighty monarchs, but is immediately followed in Act One, Scene One by two scheming prelates discussing how they can lure Henry into war against France so as to avoid his taxes on the Church.
Act Two is introduced by the Chorus vaunting that, “Now all the youth of England are on fire,/ And silken dalliance in the wardrobe lies;/ Now thrive the armourers, and honour’s thought/ Reigns solely in the breast of every man.” Sounds good, but what follows it? Bardolph and Nim hanging out with doxies and squabbling with Ancient Pistol over money.
Act Three has more has the Chorus describing the “culled and choice-drawn cavaliers” that have sailed to France, we get “Once more unto the breach” from Harry, in Scene One, but what follows this inspiring rallying speech? Why, it’s Bardolph, Nim and Pistol, skulking and shirking their duty until being beaten into the breach by Fluellen.
A far, far subtler and more subversive play than it’s often given credit for being, and one which would well repay a closer reading.
TITUS (Andronicus) was a kick-ass movie with Anthony Hopkins and also inspired the best cinematic murder ever committed by Vincent Price (against Robert Morley in THEATRE OF BLOOD)- thus, Will S. is forgiven all flaws in TA
Romeo and Juliet II: Electric Boogaloo was so bad that he burned the manuscript and it was lost to the ages.
TITUS is actually very cool when seen as Shakespeare’s early draft of HAMLET. It conforms, if way crudely, to all of the forms of the cliched (even in 1590) “revenge” tragedy–the wronged and maddened hero, the grotesqueries, the cycle of revenge-for-revenge that helped define the form, which was a popular subgenre of entertainment, much as slasher movies, with their ocnventions are a staple of our time. Now all that remains is for us to have a contemporary playwright take this debased genre and create a masterpiece of it, as Shakespeare did in writing HAMLET.
As to the worst Shakespeare play, I suspect it’s one of those I haven’t yet read, and probably one of the dubiously-authored or co-authored plays. because the more certainty of Shakespeare’s having written a play, the greater the chance of some genuine interest in what the bad play has to show about Shakespeare’s best efforts. The most poorly written of those Ive read, I think, is KING JOHN.
Clearly intended as such, the full title of Shakespeare’s worst play is A tedious brief scene of young Pyramus, and his love Thisby; very tragical mirth. Of course, it gets lots of laughs every time it is performed, but it is a very bad play.
Never finished John, though I’ve started it a few times.
I’ll go with John.
Interestingly, before the twentieth century, Coriolanus was considered the worst, and somebody (forget who) wrote in Shakespeare’s time it was performed “not above twice.”
People weren’t interested in the message “no good deed goes unpunished” for war heroes back then.
At least the nobles sit though that one! The king himself walked out of The Murder of Gonzago!
Mrs. Piper and I saw it a couple of years ago in Stratford. The program notes indicated that there is no record of it being performed in Shakespeare’s time, so it may well be an unfinished draft.
It was interesting to see, once, and had some moments, but not much memorable in the way of poetry. Certainly not ranking anywhere near the big ones.
However, it certainly improves when presented by cartoon dachshunds…
Getting back to the OP (whatever it was :eek: ), I personally can’t agree with the condemnation of either * 2 Gents* or Comedy of Errors. In the right hands, they can be a lot of fun. I saw a Stratford version of 2 Gents many years ago and was entraced by it, and the Young Vic’s production of Comedy several years ago was a hoot.
Of the plays I’ve read and/or seen, I think John and Pericles are the poorest, followed closely by HviPt1.
What? The Gondoliers is my favorite one! 
Here is this thread as a point of reference.