What is so good about Shakespeare?

[warpus]

Anyone who feels like warpus does, wanting to sue his high school for not properly introducing him to Shakespeare, can remedy the situation much more easily. Rent Kenneth Branaugh's film of Much Ado About Nothing and watch it. That's it. You'll find that the language actually provides you with little if any difficulty. You'll follow the plot readily. You'll enjoy yourself. And that's what Shakespeare aimed at: for you to enjoy yourself. If you do that, you will be doing Shakespeare, without beginning an initiation into any cult.

I am actually in the process of arranging a new home theatre style room, with the tv and couch already in place.. Once the media centre pc is in, I will make a point of watching that movie, to see what I've been missing out on.

 

[Kozmos]

I also highly recommend the Hollow Crown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Crown_(TV_series)

It's an absolute joy to watch and for months after my friends and I would drink and harass other people drinking in parks with Shakespearean dialogues at random.

 

[Traitorfish]

Shakespeare is an early modern dramatist -- the equivalent of a screenwriter today -- who made it big and stayed there. His greatness arose by the role assigned to him by later writers in English, and his reputation is protected by the mystery of his language, which is hardly understood by anyone except non-English-speakers reading translations. For English speakers, participating in collective rituals of attending Shakespeare plays and the collective deception of 'understanding' them signals one's [aspiring] membership of the 'educated class'; these are 'difficult' texts, with hidden 'deep' meaning, and by education and work you get to find out about it. When you do, you are committed to Shakespeare's greatness, because if he isn't great, then you wasted all that time and everyone is lying.

Pangur, will you run away with me?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No! That was Robert Lindsay. And Cherie Lunghi was great as Beatrice.

The Branagh version is very, very good, though, imo.

Hang on, that's Much Ado.

Twelfth Night has Felicity Kendall as kittenish Viola.

Gah! I'm getting muddled.

The article said that Penelope Keith was supposed to play Beatrice and Michael York was supposed to play Benedic. She was an excellent comedic actress, but I only ever saw Michael York in serious roles (unless you count the Musketeers movie as a comedy).

I am actually in the process of arranging a new home theatre style room, with the tv and couch already in place.. Once the media centre pc is in, I will make a point of watching that movie, to see what I've been missing out on.

 

[Zkribbler]

You just had the tragedies on your curriculum, didn't you? Much Ado About Nothing is fun, and I don't recall anyone dying in that one.

Besides, who knew Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves could do Shakespeare?

And don't forget Michael Keaton: "Everyone remember, I am an ass!"

That I enjoyed...although I had a hard time reconciling Denzel Washington as Italian nobility. But hey, it's got a nude scene.

Burton and Taylor were stupendous in "The Taming of the Shrew," although Kate's soliloquy at the end would have been so much better if her gold-digging, drunken husband had actually done all the things she gave him credit for. William, great first draft, but your play still needs some work.

Gnomeo and Juliet surprised me. I assumed it was just some dumb cartoon, but it's a pretty good riff on Shakespeare and some fair criticism of the Bard.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And don't forget Michael Keaton: "Everyone remember, I am an ass!"

That I enjoyed...although I had a hard time reconciling Denzel Washington as Italian nobility. But hey, it's got a nude scene.

Plus the "I fought the lawn chair, and the lawn chair won!" scene.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Shakespeare is severely hyped. But does he deserve the hype? To be honest - I doubt it, severely.
He strikes me just as another cultural thing people cherish because it is a cultural thing to cherish it.
He may have been extraordinary for his time or something. But that means at best the person deserves hype nowadays, but not his works,
He may have shaped the English language, invented words and stuff. But his works are not hyped for being so linguistically valuable, are they?

I personally only read Romeo and Juliet - and that in German. Didn't found it very impressive, but I also was rather young and very uninterested and forced to do it and who knows what the translation did to it. But the point is I am not saying I am "right" on this. I am just saying I have this impression.

And what do you think? Have you read Shakespeare? Why it is so extraordinary awesome to you? Why no?

Part of the reason you may find his work not as impressive could be that much of the themes and motifs he used are widely emulated by modern literature to the point of making his stuff feeling like a bunch of cliches (especially Romeo and Juliet).

Personally, I like King Lear the most.

 

[Borachio]

And don't forget Michael Keaton: "Everyone remember, I am an ass!"

That I enjoyed...although I had a hard time reconciling Denzel Washington as Italian nobility. But hey, it's got a nude scene.

Burton and Taylor were stupendous in "The Taming of the Shrew," although Kate's soliloquy at the end would have been so much better if her gold-digging, drunken husband had actually done all the things she gave him credit for. William, great first draft, but your play still needs some work.

Gnomeo and Juliet surprised me. I assumed it was just some dumb cartoon, but it's a pretty good riff on Shakespeare and some fair criticism of the Bard.

Taming of the Shrew needs binning, in some ways. A seriously bad work for modern feminism. Especially the end. People have tried very hard to give it a good spin, but I don't think anything can succeed.

I especially like the beginning with Sly scene(which you often don't see because it makes no sense at all) with the flop house character duped into believing that the play is real and he's woken up as a Lord. But then the script goes haywire and he's completely forgotten about.

 

[Borachio]

Shakespeare is an early modern dramatist -- the equivalent of a screenwriter today -- who made it big and stayed there. His greatness arose by the role assigned to him by later writers in English, and his reputation is protected by the mystery of his language, which is hardly understood by anyone except non-English-speakers reading translations. For English speakers, participating in collective rituals of attending Shakespeare plays and the collective deception of 'understanding' them signals one's [aspiring] membership of the 'educated class'; these are 'difficult' texts, with hidden 'deep' meaning, and by education and work you get to find out about it. When you do, you are committed to Shakespeare's greatness, because if he isn't great, then you wasted all that time and everyone is lying.

Yes. No. There may be some of that: participating in collective rituals, and aspiring to membership. Like church attendees. But I'm not convinced there's much.

As for looking for deep meaning, yeah, I've done that: and I'm convinced there really isn't any. The plays really aren't about mysticism in any way. They are simply and purely entertainment. (I'm not quite this certain about Macbeth. Strangely! Though, yeah, that's just entertainment too. Got to be.)

That's not to say you can't find some deep meaning in them. Or see just exactly what you want. I once read a series of essays on Twelfth Night by some worthy scholars and you can, if you wish, look at it through the lens of Marxism, Feminism, Historicism, and a couple of others which I forget. I think it's a bit daft, though, as it's "just" a comedy.

And, sure, if you invest a lot in something then you'll likely value it more. But that's true of a great many things, not just Shakespeare. It may be true of everything.

It takes a lot to re-examine one's preconceptions and prejudices, don't you think?

But if you don't like Shakespeare, don't have anything to do with him.

Are you this damning about religion, cooking, horse-racing, football, politics, marriage, sex, television, radio, pop-music, motor-racing, foreign-holidays, health services, space exploration, innumerable other things, and (dare I say?) Scottish nationalism? Is your principal hobby drowning kittens?

As for me, I haven't actually watched or read any Shakespeare for about 18 months (I think - apart from a sonnet or two - oh no, I lie; I saw a mostly indifferent performance of the Tempest at the Globe - where I'd not been before, I'm glad I went, but I don't think I'll ever go again - last summer). I must give it another go soon. Or maybe the "magic" and fascination will have faded for ever.

Thank you. Very much.

 

[Old Hippy]

That's not to say you can't find some deep meaning in them. Or see just exactly what you want. I once read a series of essays on Twelfth Night by some worthy scholars and you can, if you wish, look at it through the lens of Marxism, Feminism, Historicism, and a couple of others which I forget. I think it's a bit daft, though, as it's "just" a comedy.

Twelfth Night is not one of my favorites but it is the one I've seen the most, for about 10 years it has been put on in the Royal Botanic gardens at dusk and also in the gardens run by the local council, so thats about 20 times chicken and champagne basket supper, good company and a hot Aussie night, most enjoyable..

you also get to experience it in the medium it was intended to be seen and heard in, even good film or TV series, lack something of a plays presence or involvement
not to mention the dryness of actually studying the text of a play

or maybe I just cheap, I always get complementry tickets...
Next time I am back in the UK, I will get to the Globe and with my luck Twelfth Night will be playing

 

[Kyriakos]

So, why are all of the characters from France named... 'France'?

 

[gay_Aleks]

So, why are all of the characters from France named... 'France'?

It's complicated, their relationship.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I am actually in the process of arranging a new home theatre style room, with the tv and couch already in place.. Once the media centre pc is in, I will make a point of watching that movie, to see what I've been missing out on.

Make it the first thing you watch, because you're going to date your lifetime love of Shakespeare from this viewing.

It will be a special treat in these circumstances because, on top of everything else, it's a visually gorgeous film, the women all in bleached-white dresses against the earth tones of an Italian villa and its surrounding countryside.

And when you've enjoyed this play, report back--resurrect this thread if needed--and I'll give you the next one to watch.

@ Kyriakos. That's just in KL, and only because he's the only Frenchman in that play. Read Henry V (or watch it; Branaugh has done a film of that play too), which has many French characters, and you'll find they have all kinds of names: Orleans, Lyon, Bourbon.

 

[Borachio]

So, why are all of the characters from France named... 'France'?

Well, the one that springs to mind is "All's well that ends well". That features the King of France who does indeed call himself "France". A bit like General de Gaulle, I suppose.

There's plenty of other French characters in it who aren't called France at all.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Pangur, will you run away with me?

No sure how to take that. But in any case google and facebook know all, there's nowhere to run.

Pangur. I find progression in anything is dependent on how much of yourself you invest, don't you?

Progression as a basketball player is dependent on how much of yourself you invest. Do you regard basketball as a mystery cult?

There are no hidden meanings in Shakespeare.

I said Shakespeare's role in thet Anglosphere was like a mystery cult. I don't think basketball is similar, not unless the rules were changed to mean that only the centre of the court was visible with 'all the great play' happening behind screens and a scoreboard reacting accordingly.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Pangur, as I said in my first post, your mystery cult analogy has a grain of truth, but only a grain.

You've clearly been damaged for Shakespeare, or Shakespeare for you, by having had him presented to you in terms of trying to find the hidden meaning. There are no hidden meanings in Shakespeare, though I know some teachers use or imply that term or concept.

Everything in Shakespeare is right out in the open, exactly like a basketball game, all of which you can see. Do what I've encouraged warpus to do: watch Branaugh's Much Ado About Nothing. While doing so, don't think, any more than you would when watching any other movie, what its "meaning" is. It will have meanings for you, just like any other movie. But it will have them in the exact same way that any other movie does: fleetingly, not as some single "right answer," and just as a result of the characters and their interaction with one another.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Pangur, as I said in my first post, your mystery cult analogy has a grain of truth, but only a grain.

You've clearly been damaged for Shakespeare, or Shakespeare for you, by having had him presented to you in terms of trying to find the hidden meaning. There are no hidden meanings in Shakespeare, though I know some teachers use or imply that term or concept.

Everything in Shakespeare is right out in the open, exactly like a basketball game, all of which you can see. Do what I've encouraged warpus to do: watch Branaugh's Much Ado About Nothing. While doing so, don't think, any more than you would when watching any other movie, what its "meaning" is. It will have meanings for you, just like any other movie. But it will have them in the exact same way that any other movie does: fleetingly, not as some single "right answer," and just as a result of the characters and their interaction with one another.

Thanks, but no, I haven't been 'damaged'. My posting was designed to outline what I think are the dynamics of Shakespeare's role in the Anglosphere. I work with texts a lot less like modern English than Shakespeare on a day-to-day basis. You don't accept my view, good for you, but you've posted absolutely zilch that would make me revise my analysis.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What are the texts you work with? And what do you like about them?

 

[Farm Boy]

Thanks, but no, I haven't been 'damaged'. My posting was designed to outline what I think are the dynamics of Shakespeare's role in the Anglosphere. I work with texts a lot less like modern English than Shakespeare on a day-to-day basis. You don't accept my view, good for you, but you've posted absolutely zilch that would make me revise my analysis.

The only hidden meaning in that author is the meaning hidden from high school students who can't be bothered to read past a middle school level that need to struggle with lyrical prose to understand that the plays are all about timeless emotions that they themselves experience. It can be an epiphany for some students that have to be pestered into the effort that are surprised they like something in school. You can replicate this experience by taking Americans that just paid real attention to soccer for the first time this month.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, i guess i should merely stop posting about Shakespeare then (although i did expect my second claim to have been somewhat false anyway; but the first claim was dead-wrong and i fixed that view on Gloucester now ).