I just don't get...

[TarnishedPenny]

I think Branagh's St Crispin's Day speech is amazing, but I like even more his wooing of the French princess. IMO, it's the funniest bit of modern cinema ever done.

Grover - point well taken.

 

[SimonDoom]

As an introduction to Shakespeare I would suggest three plays. The Merry Wives of Windsor is an extremely funny farce. The Merchant of Venice is funny and Othello is a fascinating tragedy.

Interesting choices. I'm not sure I agree Merchant of Venice is funny, though. It's considered a "comedy" but it might be his darkest comedy. Shylock is almost a tragic rather than comic character. It is a complex and interesting play, though, and the themes of prejudice and injustice might appeal to a modern audience.

Merry Wives and Othello are good choices, because they're fairly easy to follow among his comedies and tragedies, respectively.

My choices would be MacBeth, which I think is a little more fun than Othello and has great villains and speeches, Midsummer Night's Dream, a great, silly romp that can be staged in a lot of fun ways, and Romeo and Juliet, the all-time classic doomed romance story. They were three of the first Shakespeare plays I read and then saw on stage or in film and I thought they were a really good intro to his work. There are good contemporary film versions of all three of these plays.

 

[SimonDoom]

I almost mentioned the St Crispin's Day speech specifically, but everything about that movie was excellent. And I think Brannagh paved the way for a lot of other actors to dispense with the stentorian declaiming that affected so many of the earlier actors.

The other thing that has to be mentioned is that Patrick Doyle's soundtrack to that speech is some of the best movie music ever. That movie is worth watching just for that sequence; it's that good.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

I think Branagh's St Crispin's Day speech is amazing, but I like even more his wooing of the French princess. IMO, it's the funniest bit of modern cinema ever done.

You're so right about that. And you don't really have to understand the French to get most of the funny bits.

Tom Hiddleston played Henry in the Hollow Crown (Richard III, Henry IV, and Henry V) and his version was much less lighthearted in that scene. He wasn't dour, but Brannagh definitely gave it a better touch, IMHO.

Midsummer Night's Dream, a great, silly romp that can be staged in a lot of fun ways

I've sometimes wondered what kind of hallucinogen Ole' Will got a holt of when he was writing that...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Michael Hart, in his The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, placed Shakespeare at #36 – ahead of Edison, Stalin, William the Conqueror, Thomas Jefferson, Fermi or Planck – and just one behind Hitler at #35. Why? His explanation is long and complex, but to take just one bit of it, call it ‘staying power’. Name one other writer has been so widely and consistently enjoyed. Hart asks, I think correctly, who today reads such eminent writers as Homer, Virgil or Chaucer unless required to? Yet millions upon millions of people attend Shakespearean plays every year. His are the most popular plays written – ever, in any language. Centuries of writers have been influenced by his works. There has to be something there worth looking at.

I agree Shakespeare is worth a look (at least the good bits) but this is essentially a circular argument: he's good because he's popular, and he's popular because he's good.

Many people attend Shakespeare performances not because they enjoy it, but because he's a big name and they've been taught that to be cultured, one must appreciate Shakespeare. Having invested time and money into brushing up their Shakespeare, they then need to reassure themselves that it was all worthwhile... which means telling the next generation that Shakespeare is essential.

It's the same sort of self-perpetuating phenomenon that drives businessmen to go on throttling themselves with neckties year after year. In Shakespeare's case, it's abetted by the fact that he does have significant merits, but there are countless examples to show that audience share is only loosely coupled to quality.

Re. Virgil, Homer, and Chaucer, I'd note that they were writing for a different medium, before the advent of printing made it possible to mass-produce books. Shakespeare had some major advantages here.

 

[SisterJezabel]

I was forced to endure Shakespeare after Shakespeare at school. We had a teacher who was able to bring the text to life. Polanski's Macbeth was even shown after parental permission sought and we were warned when to look away!

There are lots of tropes in Shakespeare that find their way into the Literotica world too.

I get some people don't like it and I don't like all of it. I like some opera for instance, but not others.

 

[Brutal_One]

Yes, not sure where I read it but Shakespeare had intended for his plays to be watched not read. He of course with such detail and imagination that in his era I guess and the absence of directors etc it must have relied on good companies to deliver his vision. I don’t recall any biographical evidence but you have to wonder if he ever watched his plays performed (you’d imagine yes) but how much of his own critic was he in either chastising himself for errors he perceived or berated the company for not executing his vision.

 

[Handley_Page]

For Those who have not heard or seen it:

Henry 5th; St Crispin's Day.

It took me a while to get the "with advantages". . . .

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I understand where you are coming from, Bramblethorn, but I'd say that comparing neckties to Shakespeare is a bit of a push. Fashions change frequently. Yes, cravats are still a thing, but fewer and fewer men wear them now, even to business or to church. I think they'll die soon enough, to join knee-britches, powdered wigs, plus-fours, high hats and spatterdashes. Through it all, for century after century of change, Shakespeare has endured.

I won't disagree that many people go to see his works 'because they should'. There's certainly some element of that, but Shakespeare is more than a fad. Think of the dozens, hundreds, tens of thousands of other playwrights in the the past 500 years. Take a run at it and name 10 of them. The attendance of millions of people each year is more than just lip-service, fad or dutiful presence. There's a genius in his work that makes it worth the effort of learning his sometimes-strange language.

As for the medium, I'll drop Virgil, Homer and Chaucer if you'll permit me to substitute Euripides, Moliere and, perhaps Ben Jonson, all playwrights, all extremely popular in their day, all still studied (albeit sometimes reluctantly) in schools. Not one of them has had the continuing popularity of the Bard. Everybody here who's gone to see a play by Aristophanes just because he's famous, raise your hands. [Long pause] I didn't think so. Bottom line, there's just something special about Willy.

See one of his plays for the first time just for rhythm and flow. Now study it to understand wording. See it a third time and watch Shakespeare's genius flower.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Shakespeare mostly wrote plays - they were meant to be seen and heard in a theater. Reading them is a different experience.

I've read a few modern plays. It's definitely not the same as seeing them. Movie scripts are even more problematic, because films are so visual. The script is like a bare framework on which to hang the material filmed with a camera.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I understand where you are coming from, Bramblethorn, but I'd say that comparing neckties to Shakespeare is a bit of a push. Fashions change frequently. Yes, cravats are still a thing, but fewer and fewer men wear them now, even to business or to church. I think they'll die soon enough, to join knee-britches, powdered wigs, plus-fours, high hats and spatterdashes. Through it all, for century after century of change, Shakespeare has endured.

I won't disagree that many people go to see his works 'because they should'. There's certainly some element of that, but Shakespeare is more than a fad. Think of the dozens, hundreds, tens of thousands of other playwrights in the the past 500 years. Take a run at it and name 10 of them. The attendance of millions of people each year is more than just lip-service, fad or dutiful presence. There's a genius in his work that makes it worth the effort of learning his sometimes-strange language.

As for the medium, I'll drop Virgil, Homer and Chaucer if you'll permit me to substitute Euripides, Moliere and, perhaps Ben Jonson, all playwrights, all extremely popular in their day, all still studied (albeit sometimes reluctantly) in schools. Not one of them has had the continuing popularity of the Bard. Everybody here who's gone to see a play by Aristophanes just because he's famous, raise your hands. [Long pause] I didn't think so. Bottom line, there's just something special about Willy.

See one of his plays for the first time just for rhythm and flow. Now study it to understand wording. See it a third time and watch Shakespeare's genius flower.

You've circled around a bit at the end toward the argument that if you don't like Shakespeare, you aren't viewing it the right way.

I think it's wonderful that there's a playwright/poet who people love so much. I could provide a litany of his flaws along with the reasons that his mythos is self-perpetuating. And it wouldn't matter. You would love him just as much, even if you believed I had a point about some things. That's absolutely okay. That's great, even. But you can't expect everyone to like him. Even among those who like him, you can't expect them to like all of his work equally. I don't like him, but I see a huge difference in quality between some pieces and others.

I just really would like some acceptance of the fact that people can not care for Shakespeare without blaming the dislike on not watching it properly, not reading it properly, or not understanding it properly. It's a bit like telling someone they don't like Brussels sprouts because they're chewing them wrong.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Ms Nyx, far from my place to extol Brussel sprouts! My point is only that there is something special about his stuff, something that puts him head and shoulders over the rest, something which now requires rather more work than when he was writing and something which is not a mere fad. But that’s not an insistence that everyone must like Shakespeare. If it matters, I like neither caviar nor lobster and find golf a dreadful bore. Millions will tell me that I am wrong and I’m OK with that, too.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Shakespeare main advantage over the other playwrights of his era was living long enough to write his great later plays (unlike Marlowe who managed only six to S's 37), and having good friends who had them all published after his death, whereas many other plays were lost. And having been written expressly for the Queen/King in several cases, were less likely to fall foul of later censorship.

I'd be surprised if anyone who likes playing with words enough to write stories couldn't enjoy a good Shakespeare production, but I'd never insist that his wordplay and understanding of the human condition was unique. I'd happily argue Brecht had more insight into human behaviour, just as one example.

Possibly just my taste, but I find the best productions are ones where all the sexuality is played up as much as possible - Patrick Stewart's Prospero clearly making full use of his gothic servant Ariel, chained to him, the recent NT Twelfth Night with female Malvolia, and an oddly convincing Taming of the Shrew where turns out Petruchio is scared to marry anyone because he's a transvestite (that was one of four BBC one-hour versions about 15 years ago).

 

[ElectricBlue]

Possibly just my taste, but I find the best productions are ones where all the sexuality is played up as much as possible - Patrick Stewart's Prospero clearly making full use of his gothic servant Ariel, chained to him, the recent NT Twelfth Night with female Malvolia, and an oddly convincing Taming of the Shrew where turns out Petruchio is scared to marry anyone because he's a transvestite (that was one of four BBC one-hour versions about 15 years ago).

The first pornster, huh?

Imagine trying to convince Laurel to let Romeo and Juliet go through!

 

[BelleCanzuto]

I just really would like some acceptance of the fact that people can not care for Shakespeare without blaming the dislike on not watching it properly, not reading it properly, or not understanding it properly. It's a bit like telling someone they don't like Brussels sprouts because they're chewing them wrong.

It's absolutely ok to dislike Shakespeare, or to like a couple of his plays or a couple of the speeches, but not nearly all of them. It's absolutely possible and ok to *appreciate* his works, to understand the additions to the English language, the phrases which are now cliche, the plots which are now done unto death, and yet not *like* his works or enjoy them.

There are any number of things in popular culture and the so-called classics about which many people rave, and I either just don't understand, or actively dislike (Game of Thrones {for a recent example} and Catcher in the Rye {for a more classic example}. People look at me funny. I don't care!

I promise not to look at you funny when you roll your eyes at Shakesperean fanboi-ing.

If it matters, I like neither caviar nor lobster and find golf a dreadful bore. Millions will tell me that I am wrong and I’m OK with that, too.

I can't stand strawberries. There; I said it.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's a bit like telling someone they don't like Brussels sprouts because they're chewing them wrong.

Oh Jeez. You don't like Shakespeare AND you don't like Brussels sprouts?

You seemed like such a nice person.

Sigh.

 

[Damoiselle]

I'm a fan of Shakespeare, but I'm avidly contemptuous of how eager snobs are to stake a claim on him as some bastion of sophistication, specifically when they don't want people to portray Shakespeare the "wrong way."

The wrong way usually being any way outside of a narrow deification of the status quo.

Shakespeare was a sensationalist. He was the Elizabethan equivalent of pulp fiction. Sophisticates don't get to own his work.

I also really detest the "he must have actually been a nobleman" theory.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Oh Jeez. You don't like Shakespeare AND you don't like Brussels sprouts?

You seemed like such a nice person.

Sigh.

I know man, what's with all the hatin' on brussel sprouts?

I'm a fan of Shakespeare, but I'm avidly contemptuous of how eager snobs are to stake a claim on him as some bastion of sophistication, specifically when they don't want people to portray Shakespeare the "wrong way."

The wrong way usually being any way outside of a narrow deification of the status quo.

Shakespeare was a sensationalist. He was the Elizabethan equivalent of pulp fiction. Sophisticates don't get to own his work.

I also really detest the "he must have actually been a nobleman" theory.

That's basically what I said earlier. Especially his comedies, which are broad and (to steal a thought from BT) turn on a lot of people being really, really dumb. Though he did, I guess, occasionally write for the Court, the majority of his works were for the masses. For people wanting to spend the afternoon at the Elizabethan era's equivalent of the movie megaplex, or binge watching "Cheer", or "Cheers".

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The first pornster, huh?

Imagine trying to convince Laurel to let Romeo and Juliet go through!

She is not yet fourteen - no chance!

Merchant of Venice playing up Antonio's unrequited love for Bassanio - or is it? There's filth potential for you. Our English teacher claimed that scholars believe there's a missing soliloquy at the end of MoV where Antonio gets all wistful about Bassanio's marriage and lets slip the closeness of their relationship.

Cue a bunch of pieces of GCSE coursework that were basically slash fiction in iambic pentameter. First porn I ever wrote...

 

[Bramblethorn]

I understand where you are coming from, Bramblethorn, but I'd say that comparing neckties to Shakespeare is a bit of a push. Fashions change frequently. Yes, cravats are still a thing, but fewer and fewer men wear them now, even to business or to church. I think they'll die soon enough, to join knee-britches, powdered wigs, plus-fours, high hats and spatterdashes. Through it all, for century after century of change, Shakespeare has endured.

...as have trousers for men and dresses for women

Think of the dozens, hundreds, tens of thousands of other playwrights in the the past 500 years. Take a run at it and name 10 of them.

I am but a poor STEMM major, but okay. From memory: Beckett, Miller, Wilde, Behn, Goethe, Strindberg, Ibsen, Christie, Stoppard, Marlowe, Rattigan, Michael Gow (obscure but I studied him in school so I'm going to count him), Chekhov, Soyinka, Ensler, Barrie, Dunsany, Barker, White, Dickens, and Byron. The last few of those are better known for their other work, though I understand Dunsany was quite well known as a playwright in his own time. Christie only wrote one play that I know of, but it was stupendously successful.

My reading is patchy and I'm largely ignorant of non-English writers, but that's my deficit, not theirs.

The attendance of millions of people each year is more than just lip-service, fad or dutiful presence.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/8a8ceb2c8b436faa23ca7784d5d1d89c/tenor.gif

You can assert this, but I'm yet to be convinced. Some things are extraordinarily popular for no other reason than that they are well promoted and were lucky enough to find a publisher at the right moment.

As for the medium, I'll drop Virgil, Homer and Chaucer if you'll permit me to substitute Euripides, Moliere and, perhaps Ben Jonson, all playwrights, all extremely popular in their day, all still studied (albeit sometimes reluctantly) in schools. Not one of them has had the continuing popularity of the Bard. Everybody here who's gone to see a play by Aristophanes just because he's famous, raise your hands. [Long pause] I didn't think so. Bottom line, there's just something special about Willy.

There is. Whether that "something special" is better summarised as "better writer" or as "benefited from writing in what was to become the de facto global language, living long enough to get a lot of work, in an era when the printing press made it relatively easy to preserve an author's work, and having friends in the right places to make him fashionable" is what we're debating.

See one of his plays for the first time just for rhythm and flow. Now study it to understand wording. See it a third time and watch Shakespeare's genius flower.

I've seen them, and in some cases performed them. I stand by my assessment: he has definite points, but his position in the canon is somewhat over-exalted, and people who don't like him aren't necessarily wrong.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Oh Jeez. You don't like Shakespeare AND you don't like Brussels sprouts?

You seemed like such a nice person.

Sigh.

I did not!

Brussels sprouts... blech!

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

...
I can't stand strawberries. There; I said it.

Shhhhh! They'll come and take you away for the strawberries comment! I'm not wild about Catcher in the Rye, either. But the classic that may be the biggest stinker of all for me is Moby Dick. Melville needed an editor as badly as he needed his next paycheck.

The mob of angry Melville supporters can form a line to the left. Salinger, to the right.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I know man, what's with all the hatin' on brussel sprouts?

This is an interesting topic! (to me, anyway)

Brussels sprouts and related vegetables contain a type of chemical called glucosinolates which gives them a bitter taste. But the ability to taste that bitterness is linked to a specific taste receptor, which for genetic reasons is more active in some people than others. So some will notice that bitterness much more than others, similar to the genetic thing where some taste coriander/cilantro as soapy and others don't.

Also, back around the 1990s, Dutch food scientists started breeding Brussels sprouts to reduce the level of glucosinolates. So even for those who are genetically predisposed to notice them, today's Brussels sprouts are significantly less bitter than they were in Kurt Cobain's time.

So some of the antipathy comes down to genetics, and some of it comes down to the way sprouts used to taste. Probably also some to bad cooking - overdone sprouts aren't great.

I wasn't wild on them as a kid, but my partner cooks some pretty good sprouts.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Shhhhh! They'll come and take you away for the strawberries comment! I'm not wild about Catcher in the Rye, either. But the classic that may be the biggest stinker of all for me is Moby Dick. Melville needed an editor as badly as he needed his next paycheck.

The mob of angry Melville supporters can form a line to the left. Salinger, to the right.

I've never even tried to read Moby Dick. I think I looked up the first sentence once* (iirc, for one of AStuffedShirtPerv's many threads about AI writing bots) and I backed away slowly before I'd gotten to the end of the paragraph. But, honestly, just the plot summary sounds tedious to me.

I can't think of it now (very tired, long crazymaking day), but there was some classic I read a few months ago, and when I'd finished the book my only thought was "What was all the fuss about?"

re strawberries: the looks I get when I tell people that are priceless. More than half the time they think I'm joking, and most of the rest of the time they insist that I must just not have eaten a "really good one", "have you had a fresh one?" "have you had them in [pick your food or beverage of choice]" Then they usually shake their heads slowly.

But, I have an ally! A good work-friend (you know, someone who's been a co-worker for a long time, and you think of her as a friend, but you've only hung out outside of work a couple of times) also can't stand them. So we band together...

*I remembered what I thought was the first sentence, but wasn't sure that was the *whole* first sentence...

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I'm a fan of Shakespeare, but I'm avidly contemptuous of how eager snobs are to stake a claim on him as some bastion of sophistication, specifically when they don't want people to portray Shakespeare the "wrong way."

The wrong way usually being any way outside of a narrow deification of the status quo.

Shakespeare was a sensationalist. He was the Elizabethan equivalent of pulp fiction. Sophisticates don't get to own his work.

I also really detest the "he must have actually been a nobleman" theory.

Talk about a glow-up.