Hellen Mirren Against Reading Shakespeare in Schools- Page 2

[joevitus]

Posted: 11/26/20 at 8:02pm

It doesn't matter whether any play was "written to be read," the fact is what Shakespeare wrote is greater than any production of any of his plays will ever be, and the plays do read extraordinarily well on their own.

"Rhythm, style and how it's staged" are all pretty empty arguments, as we don't remotely stage these works as they were written to be staged, the verbal rhythm of language in Shakespeare's day was closer to the Appalachian Mountains than "proper" mid-Atlantic British, or even the standard American speech of the average U.S. production (although you may be referring to the "correct" rhythm when reading blank verse, though really that's all wrong--the whole point of blank verse was that it mimicked realistic speech better than other forms of verse). You certainly aren't getting Shakespeare's "rhythm, style and how it's staged" from either Laurence Harvey's Romeo or Leonardo DiCaprio's (though they are both good in their very different ways).

Once again, watching a movie or stage production of Shakespeare is great, and I'd encourage it, but I don't think it's inherently any better than a classroom reading or private reading. It just depends on circumstances, and the given student, as well as the given teacher or production or movie. It may, though, be a mistake in that it will seem to force an interpretation on kids rather than letting them figure out for themselves who the characters are or what the works mean. We're all still finding for ourselves what these works mean (that they continue to generate new meaning for us each time we read them is essential to their greatness), and to give students the false idea that there's a set "right" way to interpret the characters of the "meaning" of the works doesn't do the students or Shakespeare much justice. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 11/26/20 at 10:47pm

@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

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 11/27/20 at 11:25am

Viewing a production is absolutely a better introduction to Shakespeare than reading, unless you're already versed (heh) in the styles and techniques of the time. The people who initially made Shakespeare popular did so by seeing his productions, and it's not the manner of speaking that makes a live production more engaging as a first entry, but the way an actor has of translating it and making it accessible.

JBroadway's point that it feels "authentic to the actor and, by extension, the audience" is essential here, and applies to many other plays. When I first read Our Town in English class, though I was moved by the ending, I didn't (and still don't) have the internal acting chops to make the dialogue come to life, so much of it felt oddly clammy to me. We then watched a filmed production of it, and I was riveted because the actors were able to communicate the meanings of the text that had previously been hidden to me, and when I returned to the text itself, I was better able to mine it.

Shakespeare was undoubtedly a literary genius, but he was also, and arguably firstly, a dramatic genius, and dispersing his words amongst a talented group of actors is going to unlock all of those wonderful secrets for people like me, and likely many others, who struggle on first approach to read his work. Hearing the language is the most valuable key for unlocking the ability to read it.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/27/20 at 1:00pm

I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, they were meant to be seen, not read....but that's true of EVERY PLAY. And, YES, it's difficult to just read without teachers micro-managing every couplet. Even with my actors, they have little knowledge how to proceed - so the rehearsal time line must always be lengthened.

That being said, most students are only introduced to one or two plays during their education. The first being R&J, the second either being the Scottish Play or Hamlet.

I just wish the teachers that DO teach it really got it, instead of just regurgitating info.

[JennH]

Posted: 11/27/20 at 1:16pm

Jordan Catalano said: "You know in “Pretty Woman” when Edward takes Vivian to the opera and she asks how she’ll understand it since it’s in Italian and he says -
“You’ll know. Believe me, you’ll understand. The music’s very powerful”.
I feel the same way about Shakespeare. You cant make someone really appreciate it by just reading it, especially someone who won’t understand the words. It needs to be seen to be fully understood and appreciated."

Great explanation. Best part is, is that she DID understand it because that opera was La Traviata...basically her own story in opera format, so she saw herself on stage. The only reason I was...ok, with the Bard in HS was because I was already a theatre nerd so I just enjoyed reading plays at all in English class regardless of my understanding of the text because it rarely happened. R and J was of course an easier read merely because everyone on the planet knows the story unless you live under a rock. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/27/20 at 4:19pm

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. 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/28/20 at 7:51pm

I taught high school English for 36 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.

Updated On: 11/29/20 at 07:51 PM

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 11/28/20 at 10:53pm

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.

[joevitus]

Posted: 11/28/20 at 11:43pm

JBroadway said: "@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."

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 empty argument. Depends on the student, the class, the productions available. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and it always comes down to the individual experience.

[joevitus]

Posted: 11/28/20 at 11:44pm

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]

Posted: 11/28/20 at 11:45pm

OlBlueEyes said: "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."

Good points, and of course, great quote from Hamlet.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 11/28/20 at 11:55pm

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]

Posted: 11/29/20 at 12:21am

Agree completely. There's a larger issue, actually, about reading for pleasure in general and how much school helps or hurts this. But it's one of those arguments that is insoluble, not only because there's no way to really know, but because there's no way schools can ever remove an introduction to classic literature from their programs. We'll likely be worse off if they try.

[Sunny11]

Posted: 11/29/20 at 4:36am

The storyline of several of Shakespeare plays have been inspiration for movies. For example The Lion King and 10 things I hate about you. There was also a josh hartnett movie based on othello called “O” that was postponed out of respect to the Columbine school shooting in 1999.

I struggled with English at school and never was interested in taking it beyond the minimum level required for graduation and college admission as a STEM major. Most kids are not advanced or will have an inherent interest in Shakespeare, they have to be convinced. For me these movies made a “ boring and obscure “ topic relatable and accessible.

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 11/30/20 at 6:36am

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. 

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 11/30/20 at 6:36am

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. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/2/20 at 11:16am

Studying Shakespeare is no more confined to reading his texts than studying Verdi is to reading his scores.

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/2/20 at 12:09pm

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

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 12/2/20 at 12:17pm

We don't dumb down or alter STEM subjects in school for fear of turning students off. Learning math, science, engineering, etc. takes effort, time, and grinding. Students who are motivated to succeed in those subjects will put in the effort. We should take the teaching of the humanities as seriously as we do those subjects, IMO. But we have to make their relevance and vitality as apparent to students as the STEM subjects, whose relevance is more apparent. They see the relevance of science, technology, and engineering every time they pick up their smartphones, but they may not see how literature, philosophy, or art can feed the soul in ways the hard sciences can't. I don't think it's as simple a matter as reading Shakespeare in school or watching him instead: if you don't make Shakespeare relevant, rewarding, or useful (in a non-utilitarian sense) to them and their world, any format in which they contact his work will be dead.

I was an English major in college, but even with expert acting and direction, Shakespeare is difficult to follow without at least some familiarity with the language, allusions, and plot structure of each individual play. And even then, I didn't really fully appreciate his work until much later, when I realized how poignant his language was to describe human experiences: experiences that I didn't actually go through myself (unrequited love, depression, aging, existential angst, etc.) until much later in life. I usually have to reread the plays before going to a production with the exceptions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, King Lear, and Macbeth. Here in D.C., we have The Shakespeare Theatre Company whose productions and performance style seek to make the work as accessible as possible: acting is often broad with indication around every single sentiment, joke, or allusion. I personally don't like that style of performing Shakespeare, but it does make it more comprehensible to people unfamiliar with the plays. Even still, every performance I've been to, I have overheard adults remark how difficult it was to follow or that they had no idea what was going on. I think introducing schoolchildren to Shakespeare by having them watch a play would be like throwing a novice swimmer into the deep end.

Reading a Shakespeare play line-by-line and going through the annotations is how I've internalized his work. That's what the actors and directors themselves do. It is slow work but, in the hands of the right teacher, it comes together. But this requires us to actually work to engage the material in ways that aren't just rote analysis for its own sake.

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/2/20 at 12:40pm

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

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 12/2/20 at 1:00pm

Thanks, I have enjoyed your comments in this thread very much as well. I think the devaluation of the humanities in recent years has accelerated the anti-intellectualism that has been taking place in the U.S. (and U.K., IMO), and we're at risk of losing a vital landscape of ideas, cultural touchstones, and shared reference points. The humanities enrich our quality of life in ineffable but vital ways, and it would be a shame to have that degraded.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 12/4/20 at 11:19am

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.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 12/4/20 at 11:46am

I think some of y'all have never had to suffer through a popcorn-reading session of Shakespeare. Nothing brings his work to life like a disinterested, monotone fifteen-year-old stumbling through one of Romeo's speeches like a dog trying to eat a jumbo jawbreaker, punctuated with tired-sounding corrections of pronunciation by the teacher:

"By love. Who first did. Prowmpt."
"Prompt"
"Prompt. Me to...inqueer-"
"Inquire"
"Inquire. He lent me. Consul."
"Counsel."
"Counsel. I. And I lent him eyes."

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 12/4/20 at 12:20pm

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.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 12/4/20 at 2:17pm

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..

How is this difficult to understand. I'm sure there are others who have expressed weariness and disillusionment with life as well, but not many.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.

Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

These are timeless and universal sentiments.
When we fail, was it beyond our control?

Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

A sentiment that we cowards have often considered.
I think Theodore Roosevelt stole the spirit of this.

Cowards die many times before their deaths,
The valiant never taste of death but once.

Very courageous of you to introduce politics into Shakespeare's legacy.,
And it is not out of place as something to consider.

But after the last few years, when politics comes up I run away.