|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 6, 2014 22:34:24 GMT -5
I've been reading Shakespeare on and off for years. I've got about ten plays left before I've read them all. I try to read at least one a year. But sometimes I feel like I've read all the good ones. What I've got left is stuff like Love's Labor Lost, All's Well that Ends Well, Coriolanus, Cymbeline. I have been saving Henry VIII and Merry Wives of Windsor because I do want to end with some good ones. Sometimes the lesser-known plays are surprising. I really like The Comedy of Errors and I've read it more than once. But then there's something like A Winter's Tale, which I read a few months ago and it was a bit of a chore. I did enjoy the notes because when you read the notes, you learn so much about Elizabethan customs. But the play itself had me scratching my head. Please see TWT if you ever have the opportunity. It is, as Shakespeare baldly states, a tale, and thus subject to the vagaries if the genre. Shakespeare is concerned here with redemption, mercy, suffering, the unplumbed darkness of jealousy, and the transformative power of love. Yes, a good deal of the play is pastoral comedy, but even there, the themes weave their way through the comic, bawdy scenes. Leontes is a complicated character, Othello and Iago n one mind, heart and soul, as complicated, contradictory, and confounding a character as any real-life human being, which is what Shakespeare was going for here. I can't think of any of his plays that ends wrapped up neatly, all ends tucked into the box, with "Happily ever after" or "This is what happens when evil tries to win" stamped for all to see. Watch if you can the RSC production featuring Antony Sher as Leontes if you can, and I'm sure you will have a new perspective. I'll keep my eyes open. I've changed my mind about a Shakespeare play before. I read A Midsummer Night's dream when I was in my teens and I was barely able to get through it. I'd read Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth for school and I liked those. But Midsummer Night's Dream was just terribly boring!
Then years later, I caught some large sections of the 1935 film version (with Mickey Rooney, Olivia deHaviland and Jimmy Cagney) on TCM and I enjoyed it immensely, so I read it again and got it this time. And I've since rented the 1935 version from Netflix a few times.
So I'm perfectly willing to give Winter's Tale another try. Not right away. But eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 6, 2014 23:06:58 GMT -5
The last few years I too have been trying to read a lot of the Shakespeare I haven't yet read - and it was a lot, because I had previously stuck to a fairly small subset of the most famous works. I had never read or seen any of the famous King Henry plays, for example.
So far, the only one I haven't been able to get through is The Merry Wives of Windsor, which I gave up on after only a page or two - maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it. A few weeks later I read Measure for Measure, which I enjoyed and thought had some great lines.
And I have to admit that that is often the most important thing I get from the experience. I recently read Timon of Athens (admittedly not one of his most acclaimed pieces) and there was a line or two from the title character near the end that made the whole thing worthwhile, in my eyes ("My long sickness/ Of health and living now begins to mend/ And nothing brings me all things.")
BTW, the movie version of Coriolanus that came out the last year or so is worth a look.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 6, 2014 23:57:43 GMT -5
So this discussion prompted me to go back and re-read Coriolanus for the first time in over a decade tonight. I'm surprised by just how transparent so much of it is. The themes are thrown right in your face and seem to be lacking Shakespeare's traditional subtlety. Still, I'm only halfway through, and my favorite moment is yet to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 7, 2014 18:09:30 GMT -5
The last few years I too have been trying to read a lot of the Shakespeare I haven't yet read - and it was a lot, because I had previously stuck to a fairly small subset of the most famous works. I had never read or seen any of the famous King Henry plays, for example. So far, the only one I haven't been able to get through is The Merry Wives of Windsor, which I gave up on after only a page or two - maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it. A few weeks later I read Measure for Measure, which I enjoyed and thought had some great lines. And I have to admit that that is often the most important thing I get from the experience. I recently read Timon of Athens (admittedly not one of his most acclaimed pieces) and there was a line or two from the title character near the end that made the whole thing worthwhile, in my eyes ("My long sickness/ Of health and living now begins to mend/ And nothing brings me all things.") BTW, the movie version of Coriolanus that came out the last year or so is worth a look. is a perfect example of what I was referring to. It reads poorly, because it is a script for what is probably the pro to-sitcom. Imagine reading an episode of I Love Lucy or Seinfeld to yourself if you'd never seen it or knew the characters and you get the drift. Like all farces, MWW doesn't hold up as "assigned reading;" it's a romp, and though it does indeed touch upon themes that Shakespeare found compelling, like jealousy, infidelity, and the stark differences between men and women, it is at heart a romp, a bawdy, goofy romp, and must be seen to be appreciated. No surprise that while MWW is relegated to the bottom of the Shakespeare pile by scholars as a work of literature, it is perennially one of the most performed of his plays because it is so damn funny! |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 7, 2014 18:11:08 GMT -5
And I have to admit that that is often the most important thing I get from the experience. I recently read Timon of Athens (admittedly not one of his most acclaimed pieces) and there was a line or two from the title character near the end that made the whole thing worthwhile, in my eyes ("My long sickness/ Of health and living now begins to mend/ And nothing brings me all things.") BTW, the movie version of Coriolanus that came out the last year or so is worth a look. Yes, sometimes that one line you love can open up an entire work. Anxious to see Coriolanus. Have only seen the trailers, but the Iran/Iraq connection seems to make great sense. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 7, 2014 23:22:13 GMT -5
The last few years I too have been trying to read a lot of the Shakespeare I haven't yet read - and it was a lot, because I had previously stuck to a fairly small subset of the most famous works. I had never read or seen any of the famous King Henry plays, for example. So far, the only one I haven't been able to get through is The Merry Wives of Windsor, which I gave up on after only a page or two - maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it. A few weeks later I read Measure for Measure, which I enjoyed and thought had some great lines. And I have to admit that that is often the most important thing I get from the experience. I recently read Timon of Athens (admittedly not one of his most acclaimed pieces) and there was a line or two from the title character near the end that made the whole thing worthwhile, in my eyes ("My long sickness/ Of health and living now begins to mend/ And nothing brings me all things.") BTW, the movie version of Coriolanus that came out the last year or so is worth a look. is a perfect example of what I was referring to. It reads poorly, because it is a script for what is probably the pro to-sitcom. Imagine reading an episode of I Love Lucy or Seinfeld to yourself if you'd never seen it or knew the characters and you get the drift. Like all farces, MWW doesn't hold up as "assigned reading;" it's a romp, and though it does indeed touch upon themes that Shakespeare found compelling, like jealousy, infidelity, and the stark differences between men and women, it is at heart a romp, a bawdy, goofy romp, and must be seen to be appreciated. No surprise that while MWW is relegated to the bottom of the Shakespeare pile by scholars as a work of literature, it is perennially one of the most performed of his plays because it is so damn funny! Excellent point and you've convinced me to try watching a performance of MWW on youtube before I try reading it again. I must admit that I've become almost immune to sitcom humour the last decade or so, probably because I watched so many of them when I was younger. I can almost pinpoint when it happened - towards the last few years of Cheers. Seinfeld was the exception, perhaps because it set out to be an anti-sitcom, but then that became part of the formula too, so we were left with another dead end. All this is more a reflection on my personal feelings than on the objective merit of any particular show or even the genre as a whole. I have begun to enjoy a few things the last few years - Spaced & The IT Crowd come to mind - so maybe there's hope for me yet. There might be an interesting parallel to draw between things like sitcoms and comics, both so ephemeral and dependent on the conventions of their cultural eras, though both can be so long-lived. Soaps too, though that link with comics is more obvious post-Stan Lee . |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 7, 2014 23:34:05 GMT -5
And I have to admit that that is often the most important thing I get from the experience. I recently read Timon of Athens (admittedly not one of his most acclaimed pieces) and there was a line or two from the title character near the end that made the whole thing worthwhile, in my eyes ("My long sickness/ Of health and living now begins to mend/ And nothing brings me all things.") BTW, the movie version of Coriolanus that came out the last year or so is worth a look. Yes, sometimes that one line you love can open up an entire work. Anxious to see Coriolanus. Have only seen the trailers, but the Iran/Iraq connection seems to make great sense. I'm not a great fan of re-setting the historical era of things like this. It can work, but all too often it seems like a gratuitous variation imposed by a director who wants to draw more attention to himself than to the material. But yeah, sometimes it works, and I think this is one of those times. That reminds me of something that came up in the earlier part of the discussion that I'd meant to comment on: I sympathise with Shaxper (I think it was) when he says he likes to read or re-read the play before seeing the latest film version, but therein lies a problem: as you mentioned yourself, when you read the play, you the reader are the director, the actors, and sometimes even the set designer, lighting director, etc. I find that reading the play too short a time before seeing the film can often result in an inability to listen to the speeches without continually thinking " that's not how you're supposed to say that line". So I've given up that habit and have found myself enjoying the films more for it (haven't seen anything live for a long time). |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 8, 2014 0:24:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments, Prince Hal. I read your post, but I'm going to save it so I can give it the time it deserves when I'm reading to start tackling Shakespeare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 2:13:46 GMT -5
Moving from the Bard back to Shelly, man, Shaxper was a bit on point with the Paradise Lost comparison, as I just finished the chapter where Victor's creation finds a copy of the book and reads it and then starts comparing himself to the characters within.
I guess I am finding I really didn't know Shelly's Frankenstein at all, which is an auspicious start to this venture in many ways.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Jul 8, 2014 2:16:23 GMT -5
Moving from the Bard back to Shelly, man, Shaxper was a bit on point with the Paradise Lost comparison, as I just finished the chapter where Victor's creation finds a copy of the book and reads it and then starts comparing himself to the characters within. I guess I am finding I really didn't know Shelly's Frankenstein at all, which is an auspicious start to this venture in many ways. -M I felt the same way when I listened to the librivox version last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 8, 2014 2:28:22 GMT -5
Berk, you're so right about directorial whims. Choosing a different time and place to set a Shakespeare play just to be different inevitably creates the butterfly effect. One reason (of several) I'm not as thrilled by Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet film is that the contemporary, South Beach-esque setting does not lend itself to the use of swords to settle disputes. Thus, we have Romeo, Tybalt, et al, using guns. Pointing a pistol at someone is not the equivalent to pointing a sword at him. The possibility of accidental death is far less likely in the case of the former, and robs the play of much of its poignancy. (How fortunate for Sondheim and Bernstein that switchblades were the weapons of choice on new York's West Side in the 50s.)
And sorry, but I don't see Romeo as "Fortune's fool" after he has just pumped half a dozen bullets into Tybalt, whom he has been chasing for what seems like a few hours at fever pitch just so Luhrman can add a flashy driving-by-night car chase. The catastrophic nature of Romeo's plight in the play is compounded by the speed with which everything turns for the worse. Ironically, the speed at which Luhrman's Verona moves works against this idea: no way Romeo would not have been found as he chased Tybalt in his muscle car, or cooled down in the time that passes before he finds him. He is more a character out of Die Hard than a kid caught in the machinations of Fate.
However, a production of MWW in which the conceit was that the production itself was a live television broadcast in front of a studio audience on the old Dumont network equivalent to the old Hallmark Hall of Fame shows, was different story. With the cross-dressing on Milton Berle's show, the war between the sexes on I Love Lucy and I Married Joan, the rigid nature of the roles men and women played in society then, and the production, complete with announcer, live commercials, and of course, 50s costumes, shed light not just on Elizabethan England, but on our own society, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 8, 2014 2:32:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments, Prince Hal. I read your post, but I'm going to save it so I can give it the time it deserves when I'm reading to start tackling Shakespeare. Don't wait too long!  |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jul 8, 2014 11:24:07 GMT -5
My most recent Shakesperience was a local production of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) which was a hoot and a half. See it if you get a chance.
When my father was teaching English and drama in a high school in New Jersey 50+ years ago, he had the drama club do a version of Julius Caesar set in Colorado in 1866 - General Junius Kaiser returns triumphantly from the Civil War to Denver, where ambitious politicians encourage him to run for Governor.
And for musical adaptations, I like Cole Porter's Kiss Me, Kate:
"Brush up your Shakespeare
Start quoting him now
Brush up your Shakespeare
And the women you will wow..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 12:01:25 GMT -5
Finally finished Frankenstein last night. Overall, I enjoyed the book though once preconceptions based on the movie were destroyed and the story was taken on its own accord, it became very predictable-sided in large part by the structure of the story and Shelly's choice to tell it as recollection by Victor to our erstwhile explorer narrator and the device of his letters to his sister. Once Victor refused the monster, it was a matter of when and how the victims would die, not who, so there was no suspense for the latter half of the book, just morbid curiosity in how it all played out. Still a strong effort but not because it was a page turner driving you to find out what happens next.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 19:18:49 GMT -5
And we've finished the second item of the great read-The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving. This was the second time I had read Irving's short story, the first was when I was starting out teaching at a new school and had to teach a couple of American lit courses in addition to American History and Global Civilizations because of the way the departments had been structured (teaching lit lasted 1 year, then I was full on in the history dept.) and I spent a few months immersing myself in stuff I knew of but hadn't actually read in American Lit. Of course my impressions of Legend of Sleepy Hollow will always be colored by this...  the Disney adaptation, as it was the first place I encountered the story, and I loved it although it scared the bejeebus out of me every time I saw it on the Wonderful World of Disney. Irving's actual story though fails to evoke any sense of fear or even tension. It's interesting, but the tone and language is far too conversational to effectively relate the narrative in any way that would. Irving emulates the old raconteur in the tale, bit one who is easily distracted and goes on tangents because Irving was much more interested in the trappings of the region and trying to establish a sense of "Old World mythology" for the new nation than he was in telling a riveting story. Undeniably Irving added much to America lore-from the Headless Horseman and ole Rip Van Winkle, to Washington cutting down the cherry tree and the false narrative of Columbus trying to prove the world is round when everyone else in the world thought it was flat, he has produced material that has filled the heads of American schoolchildren for generations, but he did so in spite of not being a very good storyteller rather than because of it. His stories meander and it is little incidents that stand out rather than the story as a whole. The parts of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow that most people remember i.e. the chase scene at the bridge and the Horseman carrying/throwing his head, comprise 5 of the 35 pages the story took up in the collection I read it in. The other 30 pages were a meandering account of customs, superstitions, foods, dress, etc. of the region, and the set up of the love triangle between Brom Bones, Ichabob Crane and Katrina Van Tassel which could have added a lot of tension and drama to the story but instead comes off as one more meandering detail in a sea of conversational details being spewed by Irving on the page. So great story poorly told in my final assessment. -M |
|
