Confused by Shakespeare?

Post Reply New Topic

An ASpie woman who plays violin, and can COPY and PASTE Beowulf ! !

Oh, be still my ASpie heart. (sigh)

Actually, I didn't like Shakespeare in school, but now I love at least most of his work.

He didn't use language to obscure. He merely wrote in the form of English that was contemporary at the time. If someone from the twenty first century were to travel far enough back in time, it would be fair to say that people of that time would have difficulty understanding our form of the English language, or find it odd or obscure, simply because of the amount of changes that have occurred over the years.

And at first I thought his plays were elitist, but that's not true either. Shakespeare wrote at a time when those involved in theatre were among the least respected of London's citizens. And he was actually better at writing for the masses (and writing comic scenes) than many of his contemporaries.

PS. I reckon parts of Twelfth Night are absolutely hilarious! And some of the lines from Much Ado About Nothing are enough to beat almost any romantic comedy since.

Any perception that Shakespeare is elitist or dry most likely comes from certain modern interpretations of his work.

Yeah I'm not really a Shakespeare fan either...he confuses the living daylights out of me.

What confuses me even more though: Why do we have to know how to find "symbolism" in "literature" ? English class in general is the most pointless thing ever.

I think if you stop people on the street and ask them to "translate" a random page out of a Shakespeare work, they're not going to be able to do it. I was always in the "Honors" level English courses, and all my classmates always grumbled about not being able to understand Shakespeare. It's pretty normal.

On the flip side, I've always been able to "translate" Shakespeare much more easily than most people. I read Julius Caesar when I was 9 for fun. I love A Midsummer's Night Dream, and have read it probably a dozen times. However, overall, I'm not much for Shakespeare. I absolutely cannot get myself through Henry V or As You Like It to save my life.

Also, I'm at a total loss if I'm just listening to Shakespeare. I absolutely have to see it, or I am 100% unable to translate it. I tried renting the movie version of Henry V to make up for the fact that I couldn't read it, and I turned it off after 15 minutes. I didn't have half a clue what was going on.

For me, Dickens was harder to get through than Shakespeare when I was in high school. It's best if you can see one of the plays performed, either live or in a movie version. I especially liked the version of Richard the Third done in the period of WW2, where Richard is a lot like Hitler. On the other hand, I prefer the classic Romeo and Juliet because of the costumes.

Mnemosyne... have you tried the film (1998/99 or so) version of Othello with Fishburne and Branagh? I highly recommend it.
As well, asking random people on the street to translate/transliterate Shakespeare is going to be somewhat frustrating since many people have bugger-all for a grasp of the English language, even many native speakers.

No one has mentioned the Tempest ! ! What about that play, with Ariel and all the magic ??? We did that back in High School ! !! I was quite good, by the way...

I once took a drama class, and I dont know what play it was but there was 1 word in french i had to say... why to this day I signed up for drama I have no idea. BUT come dress rehersal I freaked out and dropped out of the play and asked to be a wardrobe person. they let me and let the understudy take over.

I was really that I couldnt handle it.

Or Midsummer Night's Dream. I saw the Calista Flockhart version some years ago and thought that it was a very interesting interpretation in that they placed so much emphasis on the fairies. When I saw it again at the Shakepearean Festival I had a new perspective on how the fairies interacted with the humans in the play.

Or sheer unfamiliarity. If there is some expectation that these can be crowd-pleasing thrillers or comedys, or some speech or setting can open the door a crack, there is a possibility of finding a lot more.

Some film versions should do that, from the traditional Henry V (Olivier and Branagh versions) to the very interesting gangland version of Romeo and Juliet (Di Caprio, rather than West Side Story!)

Neil Gaiman took a look at Shakespeare in his Sandman series, and I loved what he did with "Midsummer's..." and "The Tempest"

I really enjoy Shakespeare and I have found that I can usually understand what is going on better than most people. Perhaps that comes from reading the Bible in King James Version as a child (I have no idea why).

What is forgotten when Shakespeare is taught in English is that he wrote plays to be watched, not books to be read.

Most people in 16th Century England were illiterate. Life was rough, and entertainment was rougher. Bear and badger baiting, and cock fighting were a good day's fun. People wanted bawdyness, humour, blood and guts, sex, and a bit of political satire, and to be gripped by the story. If you see a good production of some of Shakespeare's plays, this is precisely what you get.

If, however, you have to sit in a classroom droning "alas, poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio", you don't get the essence of his work at all.

It is the equivalent of giving a classroom the script to "Men in Black"and expecting essays on it, without having also seen the film.

Can you guess I like Shakespeare?

If anyone gets the chance to see Northern Broadsides do the Merchant of Venice the comedy really shines through.

Robin

I second that motion. I've learned more about R&J by acting in the school production this year than i ever did the previous year when we covered it in English I.

To fully appreciate Shakespeare, one must not read it... one must live it.

The thing that changed my mind about Shakespeare was seeing the Branagh / Samuel Goldwyn production of "Much Ado" at the cinema. And now I own a copy.

Really, can you get better rom-com banter than,

"...that some gentleman may escape a pre-destinate scratched face."
"Scratching could not make it any worse an 'twere such a face as yours were."
"Oh you are a rare parrot teacher."
"A bird of my tongue is better than a beast of yours."
"I would my horse had the speed of your tongue."

Or,

"A lord to a lord, a man to a man, stuffed with all honorable virtues."
"'Tis so indeed. He is no less than a stuffed man."

(Quoted from memory, so forgive me if I get bits wrong.)

Like all playwrights, it is natural that opinions of Shakespeare will change according to how he is viewed. And equally natural that if he is forced upon you, you are not likely to enjoy him. OF COURSE.

I mean if ALL I ever saw of Shakespeare was Olivier's Hamlet (Which, to be honest, is duller than dishwater) then I would be reluctant to see any more of his work. OF COURSE.

There have been decent renditions of most of his plays. When we studied his various works in English class, I would act out most of them and end up playing most of the characters by myself. Not only did this help me understand what was going on in the play, it also helped my acting skills.

There are some keys to understanding shakespeare. I'm pretty good at it- its lit- so I can analyze it. Here are some tips: If you have a choice between commedies and tragedies, choose tragedies. They tend to be less confusing in plot. The nature of the commedies tends to involve confusing elements as a plot device (lost people, mistaken identity, etc) and this can make it harder to follow and they can also be less fun. I prefer to study several good death scenes or at least a few dungeons to a few marriages.

Find a copy of the play that has annotations and use sparknotes or other sources to find good summaries and synopsis.

Keep a chart of the different charachters. Use it to tell you who is who and what is going on.

Rent the Branaugh version of whatever play it is (hes the guy with very thin lips). Watch it a couple of times as you go through the stuff.

Most of the histories are longer or duller or more difficult with the exception of Julius Cesar- that is actually an easier play but it lacks sex- another reason its popular in english class. So stay away from those if given a choice.

Here are some of my takes on a few plays (and I did have to take in shakespeare to get my degree).

Hamlet: Prince Hamlet- this guy is probably young. But his exact age is mysterious. Thats ok. Ophelia is young. And nunnery was possibly slang for brothel, so when Hamelt tells her to get herself to a nunnery one can imagine why she was so upset. Prince Hamlet goes home because his dad is dead. And his mother (the tramp) went and married his father's brother right away. So now Hamlet's uncle is king because the ruler is tied to the women (sort of like Penelope in the Odyssy). Hamlet is then visited by the ghost of his father, Hamlet the elder (personally I always viewed the ghost as an aspect of hamlet the younger) and young Hamlet is told that Hamlet's uncle is the one who murdered Hamlets father. Hamlet is not happy. He wants to make his uncle pay and thinks that maybe he can use an upcomming play to do so. Hamlet also decides he will pretend to be crazy. He sort of goes a little crazy too. Oops. Then there is sort of an accident and Hamlet ends up killing Ophelia's dad. So the king starts to plot to use that to get rid of Hamlet- the king doesn't like Hamlet, feels threatened by Hamlet but knows that he has to tread carefully for fear of rebellion. So he tells Ophelia's brother that everything is Hamlet's fault and then when Ophelia kills herself her brother gets even more mad. The king plots with Ophelia's brother- Laertes, and they decide that Laertes will have a fencing match with Hamlet. Hamlet is going to use a fencing blade but Laertes is not and Laertes is going to dip his blade is poision first and just in case they are also going to put a handly goblet of poisned wine near Hamlet during the match in case he gets thirsty. So they have the match. Hamlet won't drink wine but the Queen, his mother does. Oops. Hamlet gets stabbed with poision blade. He ends up switching blades with Laertes and then Laertes gets stabbed too. So thats three people poisoned so far- and Laertes tells Hamlet what is going on so them Hamlet stabs the King and makes him drink the poison wine too. Since everyone is dead the play is over.


Measure for Measure: This is in the commedies but it is sort of interesting from a Historical perspective. Lets talk about bastards. As much as present day Americans might like to pretend, our Ancestors were fond of sex. The English in Shakespeare's day liked to have sex and they didn't necessarily wait to get married first. It wasn't uncommon for a girl to get pregnant and then get married. Instead of freaking out about, the couple then got married and everything was ok. But economics happened. Due to economic conditions less couples were getting married after the baby bump appeared- more men were going off to the city and trying to find jobs, raising a family is expensive, etc. So there were more bastards. Thats when it all became a community issue. Now if premarital sex is illegal, how do you know who is guilty? Well you wait until a girl gets pregnant. And that is how Measure for Measure opens up. This guy gets his girlfriend pregnant. But the duke's apointed ruler guy, Angelo, (the duke says he will be out of town and lets Angelo rule for a while because the duke knows Angelo will be strict and the Duke is too wimpy to be strict himself. Meanwhile the duke is running around pretending to be a friar.) won't let them get married- nope instead the duke is going to make an example of this guy and have him killed. So then the guy's sister, Isabell is about to become a nun. But she decides to go argue for her brother's life. Angelo ends up saying that he will spare Isabell brother, but only if Isabella with sleep with him. Isabell at first says no but her brother asks her to. Then the duke, pretending to be a friar, says he has a plan: Angelo had jilted this one girl a few years back and they are going to send her in Isabell's place (all covered in a viel) to get a token from Angelo. That goes according to plan. At the end it all ends up with more confusion and more stuff and then a big reveal- that duke is a tricky fellow. He has Angelo marry the woman he jilted and then says he will have Angelo executed and tells Angelo's new wife she will be able to buy a better husband- but she wants to keep Angelo. So he lets her and he reveals to Isabel that her brother is alive and well. The Duke then asks Isabel to Marry him. Now this is another interesting part- what can Isabel do? Say, thanks but no thanks? I don't think so. She really doesn't have much of choice. This duke is a guy you should watch critically and carefully.