Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmstinger102 posts in thread
Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmWhen I was in high school and Shakespeare was compulsory, I used to love the stories (plenty of sex and violence) but hated the language. Why could he have not said the same thing in plain and simple words? And why should we Aussies have to learn about old Pommie poets anyway?
When I was at uni in the 70s, I had a small part in the scottish play. I had one long speech to remember. It was most daunting, until it was pointed out to me that it was written in iambic pentameter, so that once the actor got into the rhythm, the actual words just seemed to flow.
As I matured, I began to appreciate the whole canon more and more. I realised that Shakespeare had contibuted more to the development of the English language than any other single person (with the possible exception of Chaucer). Moreover, it was not only great literature, but if you could tap into the language, it was great theatre as well.
Nowadays, it stikes me that any theatre actor worth his or her salt has done, and yearns to do more Shakespeare, as an important aspect of their artistic development. Not only that, but the plays never seem to lose their audience appeal.
Finally, I regard myself as a devotee of Australian dramatic works and historical narratives. I value our national heritage to the point of jingoism. Having said that, I regard Shakespeare as just as much a part of our heritage as Britain's.
I therefore categorically disagree with the above proposition.
Shakespeare had some good 'uns
Mon, 10 Nov 2008, 10:16 amI think you're right Stinger (yes, you read that right :)). I think the appreciation of Shakespeare is something that happens over time and with maturity. It's similar to appreciating wine.
Actually the two go well together - my girlfriend is currently holding readings of Shakespeares's plays on a Sunday afternoon - we do a read through of the play and my wine stock seems to be reducing at an alaarming rate.
But I digress, the readings are helping me appreciate the works more and indeed we have recaps to ensure we understand what is happening at given points when dullards such as myself start with the "what the hell is going on" faces. It's a lot of fun.
Melissa's intent is to do all the plays (in alphabetical order) which means that in a couple of weeks we'll be doing Coriolanus - a work of his which almost never gets a mention.
It also gives us a chance to "perform" Shakespeare in that we get to choose the voice of our character(s) and the delivery of the text. It's sure to stand us in good stead if we ever decide to audition for an actual production of one of his works.
Dismissing Shakespeare is too easy - dare I say, fashionable.
I understand that other great writers have come before and after Shakespeare and I don't believe Stinger's rebuttal was intended to dismiss those authors. From a theatrical point of view I think it's clear that the works of geezers such as Aristophanes still get a workout to this very day but the importance of Shakespeare in regard to the development of modern theatre can't be denied.
Still, you can lead the metaphorical horse to water but you can't make it drink. We may be on a losing team trying to rally others to the cause Stinger - methinks they may have too ingrained in their memories long afternoons in school trying to work out what the hell King Lear is all about.
Anyone interested in joining in on Sunday afternoon Shakespeare readings/wine quaffings, please message me and I'll pass on your details to Melissa. She's always on the lookout for participants. Hamlet looms and that's likely to be a marathon - at least a three bottle exercise.
;)
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···