what's your favorite way to encounter Shakespeare?

[shaxper]

Do you prefer reading a big, old anthology, a small single-play paperback, an up to date Arden edition complete with footnotes, an amateur production, a professional production, an intimate reading, a film, etc?

[Ganymede]

I love to encounter plays in discussions with others (which is why I belong to this board ). The characters seem to come alive when they are being discussed among people who feeling strongly about them (love or hate or somewhere in between). Of course, I also enjoy well-thought-out productions, whether amateur or professional, especially those that take an unconventional view of the play.

When I read, I sometimes like to read out loud or to imagine a production I would direct, that way the characters become more tangible and the play really begins to come alive.

[MsDirector]

Hi All! I'm back!

I love to read Shakespeare aloud or see a good production of it. I don't seem to be able to read Shakespeare silently and get the full meaning, perhaps because I'm theatrically oriented . I need to hear the words acted. I often find that seeing a play I'm unfamiliar with, either on stage or in a film, will make me want to explore it further and will then enable me to read the play with greater understanding than if I were to pick it up and read it entirely unintroduced.

My father was a great opera buff. He used to read a synopsis of an opera before he went to see it, so that he could enjoy the music and pageantry without struggling to understand the story. I think that same approach works really well with Shakespeare. The music of the words, the unfamiliar vocabulary and the differences from contemporary grammar often get in the way of understanding the story, characters and relationships, at least initially. Seeing a well-acted performance or a popular film version, or reading a well-written synopsis of the storyline and relationships, can make an initial reading of the play much easier.

[shaxper]

Excellent point.


My mind goes back to a post Ganymede made a while back about learning Shakespeare in highschool through performance, and how that was important because it's otherwise easy to forget that there's supposed to be more to the play than words, though reading the words first may help cross the Elizabethan language and allusion barriers.


I tend to enjoy seeing a film or play first and then going back and reading it because that way I can carry the production into my head. I can see how it happened in the performance I saw and then make personal changes; sometimes drastic ones. I love Branagh's Henry V partially because of its high production value, and partially because I strongly disagree with much of the interpretation. I take it back with me when I reread the Henrys and think "now this is how I would have done it instead". I still find it easier and far more fun than begining with a blank slate.

[Lord3]

For me, nothing replaces a live performance. It doesn't really have to be a good one. When it is a bad or indifferent one I hear the play and appreciate the writing, I(usually) disagree with the way it has been done or I get upset that an actor has missed the point. But I don't feel the play. It doesn't sink into my bones and make my soul stir. When a play is performed with passion and commitment that is usually what happens. It could be a high school production of MND as long as whoever is doing it understands what theey are giving to the audience.
I like reading plays I know already, to mull over the way WS has expressed a thought. I usually read from my well worn Riverside. The essays are usually pretty thorough and the plays are well noted without too much information.

[The_Turtle]

I absolutely adore Hamlet-the musical. ;D
kidding ofcourse. My favourite encounter was an open air performance of midsummer night's dream two years ago in 'Het Amsterdamse Bos.' (A park near Amsterdam). Yep, that was good. However, I also like rummaging the Complete Works late at night.

[shaxper]

You know, it's a funny thing, but I end up reading the plays differently, depending on which copy of the works I'm reading from. Somehow, my 19th century Knight complete works does something very different for me than my Globe Illustrated, or my Bedford edition, or my little portable Head Press edition. I can't quite explain it. Does anyone else ever get that sense?

[Ganymede]

I definitely agree, and that doesn't just go for Shakespeare plays. In this case, size does matter.

If I'm reading from the massive Bedford edition of Shakespeare's complete works, with the book lying heavily on my lap, I feel a bit weighed down by all the words and feel compelled to read all the footnotes and take a more scholarly approach-- like this is work! However, if I curl up with a portable edition, I feel more comfortable and free to enjoy the play in my own way. I recently reread A Midsummer Night's Dream that way and I saw the play in a whole new light. Actually, it seemed so much better than I ever thought previously. I felt free to enjoy it without analyzing it.

[MelanieS]

A while back - about 4 years ago - I started to
do my daily "15 minutes" - I set up a video
camera, switch it on, and read from plays out
loud. I do this every day without fail, even in
hotel bathrooms if I'm on holiday. I hardly ever
watch the video tapes, it's just to be able to
feel free and "onstage" in front of a running camera.

I found that Shakespeare is great to read out
loud, being slightly asmathic, reading Shakespeare
out loud makes me feel better, physically - it
must be because of the rhythm, or something -
it's just good for my voice.

I found I understood some of the difficult textual bits in a better way than just by reading them silently to myself.

However, I love good film versions of the plays
because then I see other interpretations I didn't
think of when reading them.

I live in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, so I don't get to see original English language Shakespearean productions on stage, and I'm not to fond of them in German, so I can't talk about stage
productions.

Melanie S

[Agamemnon]

I prefer poetry in its purest form, words on a page, without annotations and needless clutter. Just the reader and the words.

Verse is also best enjoyed in solitude, as people in, say, a bus tend to look strangely at a person who suddenly starts reciting a passage of rhyme.

I hope to someday see a Shakespeare production in London, which to me is the only way to truly experience it.

[Ellinore]

Needless clutter! (Hi, Agamemnon, I'm Ellinore and I'll be your devil's advocate for the thread. )

Like shaxper and Ganymede, I get a different "feel" when I read from different editions, and a different one again when I read annotations, and yet another when I read commentaries at the same time, and yet another when I see the show performed.

True, sometimes my view becomes skewed one way or another by this experience. The Feste in Trevor Nunn's film version of Twelfth Night has really rather completely altered my perception of that part. Certain of the footnotes in Bevington's 4ed of the Complete Works have altered the way I read certain speeches.

But I crave this difference. I crave a multiplicity of Shakespeares. Ex. grat.: the classic question, "Is Hamlet crazy?" If the player plays Hamlet descending into madness, the play becomes a tragedy of mistaken assumptions. One begins to doubt whether Hamlet Sr. died of unnatural causes at all, and therefore one feels sorrow that so many should die over a schizophrenic's delusions. Ophelia becomes a sympathetic figure, too bound up in her love to pull out of Hamlet's downward spiral. But, if the player plays Hamlet as a very clever fellow who feigns madness to a certain purpose, the play becomes a tragedy of intentions. The best laid plans of a smart man cannot compensate for the ruthlessness of Claudius' ambition, the frailty of Ophelia's spirit after her loss, or the vengeance in the heart of Laertes. Hamlet's brilliance is overwhelmed by the emotional force of others.

Both of these plays (they are really two separate Hamlets, even if they both have the same text) could do much to make an audience think and feel, don't you think? Both of these plays can tell us a story that reminds us of our own world. So shouldn't we love both interpretations, and the annotations and actors who awaken them?

[Agamemnon]

It is indeed that which sets the play apart from all other art forms. Even though based on the same script, no two renditions of a play are identical, resulting in fantastic multiplicity.

[Ellinore]

Ah, we agree on that. Then... wouldn't you say that different sets of annotations could be like different productions of the play? Bevington's rendition of Hamlet gives a good deal of historical background and word origin or usage material. My friend James' copy, marked up for his own performance, gives his emphasis and asks his questions (most of which are very heavily psychological -- James is a crack shrink). My own copy has ballpoint notes in five colours from the five different times I've read the play in that edition, ranging from when I was fourteen to the present, so it is a bit like reading an old diary that shows how I have changed since early adolescence. Aren't these all valid productions of Hamlet too?


Don't mind me, I just got the Devil's Advocate hat stuck on my head and have left it there

[Bardolph]

I don't know if this string will be picked up again, but I certainly hope that it will.

My reply is something between that of Lord3 and that of Ellinore. I think that WS meant for the plays to be viewed on stage. His lack of concern for publishing the plays underlines his intention for their purpose. But after that's done, I like the multiplicity of ideas that spring up from the pages of many editions and many criticisms. They are really separate pursuits. One is an appreciation of drama and the other an appreciation of literature. And though WS didn't seem to intend his plays to be taken as literature, here we are.