Hellen Mirren Against Reading Shakespeare in Schools — Page 2

@Joevitus

Regarding the question of authenticity, and how it was "meant" to be experienced: the way I think of it is less about speaking the words in a specific rhythm or dialect that was true to Elizabethan England, and more about hearing rhythms and dialects that are true to now; that feel authentic to the actor, and by extension, the audience. Just hearing the words spoken out loud in a way that rings true to the audience is such a powerful thing.

However, that leads to your last point about literary interpretation. I agree that's probably the biggest obstacle in this scenario. If you take a group of students to see a production with a heavy interpretative lens, it will be hard for the whole class to not be influenced by that single interpretation in their literary analysis. Maybe one solution would be to expose the students as many different interpretations of a single play as possible so they can begin to broaden their perspective, and allow them to start formulating their own reading. But that wouldn't be very time-effective. However, even if there's no solution to that problem, I might argue that it's the lesser of two evils. If narrowing their potential range of analysis is the cost of inspiring a life-long hunger for the material, it might be worth it. 

As for the plays "reading extraordinarily well on their own" - that sort of depends on the person, and the play. I remember enjoying reading Hamlet for the first time as a high school student. But there are many Shakespeare plays that don't read nearly as well as they play onstage, and many people who don't enjoy reading any of them, but do enjoy watching them. 

Updated On: 11/27/20 at 10:47 PM

Back in the 90's we had a program at the DCTC where kids would get a short synopsis of the Shakespeare play they were going to see. We had them arrive early and told them to look at the play as if it were happening "today" and at intermission there would be a short discussion on how they would respond to what they saw and how they thought it would end. The discussions were great and very spirited. 

After seeing the show they would discuss it in class. We had some kids excited about returning. The program was two fold. To expose them to both Shakespeare and the theatre. 

I really hope they don't reduce it, but then American schools (even colleges) seem to earnestly want to evolve into trade schools, so I can't say I'm surprised. The idea of teaching beauty and finding the truths meaningful to oneself in works of art and beauty is the least of their concerns. 

Nice.

In school we used books by a publisher I can't remember that had the text of the play on the right page and notes explaining what we might not understand on the obverse. Famous quotes were indexed at the end.

Why read Shakespeare in high school? His use of language is just so felicitous and a tie was formed that would last a lifetime. 

I also appreciated that Shakespeare wrote for the beggars in the yard and the royalty in the boxes.

Language and understanding not so difficult. Of course I was in a segregated class where most already loved to read.

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me: no, nor woman neither.

Dollypop said: "I taught high school English forv36 years and always read Shakespeare in my classes. I would take a major role--not because I was ham but because I wanted to pace the class. I really got into the roles I was reading a d had props available for me and the students to use. Many, many times, the kids told me that reading the plays was much more exciting than watching the film which was always the follow-up. They were also able to write good essays about the plays on the state-mandated Regents exams."

Thanks for sharing this.

joevitus said: "It's always about the particular person and play. I just think trying to create a default judgement--students should/should not first be exposed to Shakespeare in the theater--is an inherently emptyargument. Depends on the student, the class, the productions available. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and it always comes down to the individual experience."

 

Sure, that's all true. I think it's probably less about "let's make reading Shakespeare banned from schools because nobody benefits from it" - and if people do say that, I would guess they're speaking hyperbolically. I think this argument is more about pointing out a troubling trend that exists among many -- but not all -- students, and considering ways to curb that trend where it appears.

And I would guess that if you were to interrogate Dame Helen about this further, by presenting counterexamples to her argument, she probably wouldn't say "Impossible! Reading Shakespeare is always bad!" I'd like to think she would say something similar to what I just wrote in the paragraph above (but then, maybe I'm projecting, lol!) 

joevitus said: "HogansHero said: "speaking as someone who has taken my fair share of kids to their first exposure to Shakespeare, I think you underestimate them. Although of course there are teachers who manage to create an enriching experience, a random sampling of adults not involved in the theatre will tell you it's boring, and that assessment is most often based 100% on their 9th grade class"

The big issue is that it would be disastrous for an institution dedicated to learning not to teach Shakespeare. Familiarity withShakespeare is a fundamental part of being what is called being educated. Helen Mirren herself no doubt first encountered Shakespeare in the classroom."

Mirren has described her introduction to Shakespeare as being taken to see Hamlet. She said it was like watching a thriller because she didn't know what was going to happen. 

I think Shakespeare is frustrating to watch or read because of the difficulty of the text but it is magical when an actor makes it seem easy to understand. 

No one has said otherwise. Though it's far easier for the average  person to read a play than for the average person to read a score (operatic or otherwise).

Updated On: 12/2/20 at 12:09 PM

I think you make superb points. Really nicely stated. And I love your insistence on the importance of the humanities. So, so true.

I, too, appreciate Hellen and all her friends here for entertaining and informative thread that brought back relatively rare good memories of high school and discovering Shakespeare through Macbeth, Othello and Julius Caesar.("Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much."

Joevitus really in top form.

It's been very interesting reading this thread. So many great points.

I have acted in a lot of Shakespeare's plays, and as a theater teacher, I have directed students several Shakespeare productions, as well as countless Shakespeare scenes. For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on this subject based on my experience:

English has changed so much since Elizabethan times, and SO many of the words Shakespeare uses have either changed meaning or are not used at all anymore, and some of the imagery in his poetry is SO dense that even smart, well-educated kids have a hard time understanding it. Now having "a hard time" is often a good thing in education, as that is how deeper learning frequently occurs, but if we don't approach Shakespeare's plays the right way with kids (or adults), they will end up hating them because they make them feel stupid and bored.

I teach students in grades 6 through 12, and my attempts at having 6th graders read or perform Shakespeare has been disastrous. They are simply too young. I'd say that for middle school kids, SEEING a Shakespeare play done well is the only proper introduction. AFTER seeing a production, it can be valuable to then go back and analyze the text, but having young kids read a Shakespeare play that they have not yet seen performed is a waste of time, and is likely only going to turn most of them off to the Bard.

With high schoolers, you will have much more success getting them to understand and appreciate the plays on a textual level, but still, having them see the play and then read it will result in more engagement and understanding. 

Shakespeare is like music in that you aren't supposed to understand every word and phrase the first time you hear/see it performed. Understanding every aspect of the plot and every single idea the characters are trying to communicate is not the point. The overall effect is the point. They are plays, and are meant to be consumed in one sitting and then thought about.

All of that said, I do think that we need to stop using phrases like "the greatest playwright in the English language." He was certainly the greatest playwright of his time, and hugely historically significant, but comparing his work to those of modern playwrights is like comparing apples and oranges, and telling kids that no playwright has ever achieved what he did over 400 years ago is not only untrue, it is basically the equivalent of telling them that non-musical theater is dead.

From my observation, Shakespeare's plays are loved not only because (many) of them are indeed great and timeless, but also because the Western world has been taught that they are "supposed" to like his plays, and therefore, when someone actually does, they receive the cognitive reward of feeling they are worthy of praise. Conversely, when someone doesn't like one of his plays, they have been trained to see that as "bad," and their intelligence and taste in storytelling subsequently inadequate. We as a society see Shakespeare as "high art" that only a select few are worthy of truly appreciating.

This is ridiculous. These plays are over 400 years old. They are written in an early form of modern English using and avalanche of words and phrases that don't exist anymore, and reference things that were common knowledge in 16th century England but which that no modern reader or audience member could possibly know about. If you add on the fact that tragedy ages WAY better than comedy, and that many of the comedies are barely comprehensible (and not even remotely funny without great actors and gimmicky staging), then it's no wonder that so many people hate Shakespeare - especially those who had it shoved down their throats as pieces of literature, when really, they were never meant to be treated as literature in the first place.

Because of this, I have to wonder: why is it that we as educators need to make kids enjoy Shakespeare? Because English colonialism treated him like the Jesus of theatre and created a religion out of his plays that was proselytized to the masses, and members of the Church of Shakespeare are still ringing doorbells, book in hand?

I think it's time for us to take him off his pedestal. Yes, we should expose our students to Shakespeare's plays (the best ones, anyway). It's part of being a well-educated person. But if we really want the next generation - and generations to follow - to appreciate the man and his work, we need to stop the bardolatry. Field trips to productions of his plays are ideal, but if that is not possible, there are TONS of great film versions of his plays out there. Theatrical productions filmed in front of a live audience are vastly preferable - National Theatre, Globe Theatre, Stratford Festival - all of these are available online for a relatively low cost. 

Helen Mirren is right. Students need to SEE Shakespeare. And if we want them to like Shakespeare or at least appreciate him and his work, we need to treat and acknowledge his plays for what they are: historically significant and often still enjoyable and meaningful to watch, but not the be-all end-all of the theatre. That point of view - especially as taught to our children - is simply dangerous to the mission of keeping non-musical theatre alive in the 21st century.