It's true that many plays are brought to life when they are acted out on stage, but is the situation really as bad as they're saying in a BBC article? When you think of Shakespeare, does the word "boring" come to mind? What word does come to mind when you think of Shakespeare's plays?
But, it's also true... When I think about Shakespeare, I think about the words on the page. But, I also think about the stage dramatizations of his works. I think of the lines, but I can also picture the actors who so masterfully brought those lines to life. So, do you prefer reading the plays, seeing the plays, or some combo of the two?
Perhaps, all we need is a good teacher to bring the lines to life, or a way to encourage classrooms to act out the plays for themselves.
Comments
I fell in love with the plays by simply reading them, and that’s where I get the most joy. While I see a few productions a year, most of them are disappointing: Directors often have their own agenda. It’s tough to cast the roles so they are uniformly excellent. But my biggest complaint is always the textual cuts.
Still, a great production, though rare, can be a fantastic experience, and add to my understand and appreciation of a play.
Yeah, I think the BBC is over-reacting. Some people will be bored by Shakespeare no matter how he’s presented, but his popularity has never been higher, and there’s always going to be plenty of people who love the plays.
I also fell in love with Shakespeare–based on the written word. I’m trying to think of the first Shakespeare play I actually saw on stage, and I think I was in college. And, like you say, not all productions are of the highest quality… I’ve gone to a play, heard some lines (or the way the actor presented the scene), and thought, “That’s not how it’s written…”
Sure enough, when I go to the text, it becomes apparent how many changes have been made. These alterations are sometimes entertaining and enlightening, they might not really give a beginner a true taste of what Shakespeare created.
I also have to say… Readers can’t say they are bored with the play unless they have actually READ the play. Students sometimes skim the text and/or skip major sections, and then say they are bored. A better understanding of Shakespeare sometimes requires that you re-read passages and/or the whole play. It sometimes requires that you look up words you don’t understand and read it outload. If a reader can come to appreciate the written text, the theater experience can be that much more enjoyable.
I’m always surprised by how many people don’t read the plays before seeing a production. I saw an excellent, and mostly uncut, Richard III a couple years ago. I was constantly hearing audience members whispering, “Who’s he?” and “whose she?” Shakespeare is counting on the audience being familiar with these people, either from the earlier plays or from cultural knowledge.
Which gets to the root problem. Shakespeare IS hard. To really appreciate the plays we have to have a good understanding of Elizabethan culture, ancient mythology, and the Bible…not to mention a good dictionary. That’s an awful lot to ask of high schoolers. I’ll admit I don’t know the best way to teach Shakespeare, or even if it should be taught at all.
I got lucky, the first production I saw was an Ashland production of Hamlet…front row, no less. The funny thing is I complain about directors cutting Shakespeare, but my two favorite movies are Prospero’s books, and Julie Taymor’s Titus. So I guess I’ll allow a director to put his/her stamp on the play if they have a very, very good stamp.
I am always horrified when I hear people say they “can’t” read the classics! Can’t? It is more like “won’t take the time”. I have loved them since my youth and read virtually nothing but, with the exception of a very, very few bits of modern literature.
My children were given classics to read by the time they were nine years old. My grandson shares my love of them and we have a wonderful time discussing them. Where I live, the literary mentality entails cheap paperbacks with the heroines wearing ripped bodices and being embraced by Fabio clones…eeeewwww.
I’m a bit biased because I met my husband while we were both in a production of Midsummer Nights Dream. So of course I have fond memories of stage productions of Shakespeare. Some of the “modern interpretations” actually alter the plays or are just plain distracting. In high school the only year I “got” Shakespeare was when I had a teacher who acted out parts for the class. So I guess I fall on the performance side of seeing plays, afterall they were written to be performed not to be read. I love to read but there are things that are not to be read. You wouldn’t read a movie or tv script instead of seeing it. However if the play is based on a book, then the book should be read.
I have a college degree in English but still have not read every single one of the plays. But I learned to appreciate WS because I am a natural lover of words and language.
I always found it difficult to just sit down and read the plays, so when I was required to read a WS play in college (this was back in the 90′s, when I went back to finish college at the age of 40), here is what I would do. (It’s time-consuming, but it sure worked for me. By the time I had done this, I REALLY knew the play well enough for class discussion, exams, essay questions, etc.)
I would go to the university library and locate the Audio-Visual Department where they have all the videos and the recordings. FIRST, I got my play text and checked out the recorded version (usually on an LP, recorded sometime back in the 1950s or 1960s) and I would read the play through while listening to the recording of it. The good thing about AV Depts. in university libraries is that usually you have a LOT of solitude and peace and quiet because not many students are ever there using the equipment. I found it to be a great resource.
After I had read through and listened once, then (either that day or within one or two days) I would check out the BBC video of the play, and watch it. By that time, I was already familiar with many of the lines, and the whole thing made a lot more sense to me then.
By attacking the play’s text in this “multi-sensory” fashion, I found I could really get into the plays and enjoy them much better. And THEN I was ready to go back with just the play text ONLY and read through it once more, this time writing down ideas and making notes, making lists of characters, symbolism, etc.
Like I said, it’s time-consuming, but it really lets you understand the play – especially if you’re in a classroom situation and you want to make a REALLY good grade. Many folks will not want to or cannot invest that much time in the process.
Also, I learned a great appreciation for the HISTORY plays this way. Now I believe I like the history plays even better than the comedies and tragedies.
When I go back to read all the rest of the plays that I have not read yet, this is the way I will do it – except I might use either my local library or a local university library as my resource. Those old LP recordings of the plays can still come in handy!
I liked most of WS but I don’t think he is the be all and end of all of the classics. How about Hardy, Dreisder, Eliot, et al? They aren’t chopped liver.
Sorry I hit a typo and put “Dreisder” instead of Dreiser…chalk it up to the fact that I am sicker than heck and on enough meds to choke a horse…sorry
I find that if I imagine that I am looking at a stage when reading the plays then I can cut out most of the superfluous directions. Of course then it just becomes a matter of relaxing and reading. Some of the language in Shakespeare is admittedly out of use but he is easy to read. There is a natural rhythm and flow to the speech.
My first Shakespeare book was a childrens’ version called Tales from Shakespeare. It told the stories of his most famous plays and intersperced famous quotes. It obviously worked for me because I not only love the written Shakespeare but adore the live performances. My greatest thrill was holding a First Folio of Shakespeare that Darmouth College owns. I was petrified that I was going to drop it! My love of classics also includes Hardy, Dickens, Marlowe, Spenser, etc.
I remember Shakespear althought I never learned to spell without a dictionarry since i am an Okie. I spoke the Dagger Speach “Is this a dagger which I see before me —”
And I found that the bard had much to say and I contnually remember Hamlets lines “Their are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your your society …
Thanks for the reviews.
Cheers Elmer