Shakespeare?

[Polymath257]

Just did. question, is your native language English?

Yes. Raised in central Kansas in the US. I know a smattering of French, but would not consider myself fluent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Raised in central Kansas in the US. I know a smattering of French, but would not consider myself fluent.

I know someone who lives in France.

 

[Wu Wei]

Yes. Raised in central Kansas in the US. I know a smattering of French, but would not consider myself fluent.

Go with Cliffnotes or Sparknotes

 

[Polymath257]

Well, what's happening in the opening lines of Merchant? (It's the play I tell everybody who wants to get into Shakespeare to start with.)

Why, nothing really important at all. Think of a movie, in the opening scene, some characters come on and say some things -- you have no idea what it's about yet -- you have a whole movie to watch for that. So why not wait for it?

So Antonio (who is, in fact, the Merchant) has been chatting with some friends and we come upon them when he is saying something like, "well, I really don't know what's getting me down." (In sooth, I know not why I am so sad.)

His friends, being friends, try to help him out. He has a bunch of ships at sea -- big risk at the time, and his fortunes depend on it. And he tells them "no, that's not it." So they make the suggestion that he is "in love." And this may well be true. Shakespeare may well have meant for us to understand -- as we find out as the play goes on -- that Antonio really is in love with Bassanio, who he risks his very life for.

Want to see more of that? Al Pacino's version is quite brilliant -- again free.

OK, I have gone through about a quarter of this. I have had to go back numerous times to catch what was said, but it makes more sense than any other Shakespeare I have seen or read. So, for an hour of watching, I made it through 30 minutes of movie. But I am following it to at least some extent, which is itself a miracle.

I noticed, though, that the movie removes much from the writing. And, often, it is the part removed that bothers me when I attempt to read.

 

[Heyo]

Yes. Raised in central Kansas in the US. I know a smattering of French, but would not consider myself fluent.

I don't know why but I assumed you were a Brit.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

OK, I have gone through about a quarter of this. I have had to go back numerous times to catch what was said, but it makes more sense than any other Shakespeare I have seen or read. So, for an hour of watching, I made it through 30 minutes of movie. But I am following it to at least some extent, which is itself a miracle.

I noticed, though, that the movie removes much from the writing. And, often, it is the part removed that bothers me when I attempt to read.

Yeah, I won't ever see a movie of a Shakespeare play until I actually know it well from the play itself (reading or a good production on stage).

Movies can fill up a lot of a viewers attention with gorgeous visuals and movement that simply aren't available on stage -- so a movie screen play can't contain half of all the words that would appear on stage. (Even on stage, it is very rare for a director to keep all of the words of any play.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

OK, I have gone through about a quarter of this. I have had to go back numerous times to catch what was said, but it makes more sense than any other Shakespeare I have seen or read. So, for an hour of watching, I made it through 30 minutes of movie. But I am following it to at least some extent, which is itself a miracle.

I noticed, though, that the movie removes much from the writing. And, often, it is the part removed that bothers me when I attempt to read.

And something I'd like to add -- I know it sounds unlikely but it is never-the-less true: the more you actually read Shakespeare (or listen carefully to a play), the more you will understand. It really does get a lot easier with time.

Listening to good actors is a treat, too. That's why I linked the "Playing Shakespeare" series. Actors spend a lot of time understanding what the characters are all about, what they mean, what the words say they feel and so forth, and they can really help with your understanding of the words simply because they almost "live them" in front of you.

 

[crossfire]

@Polymath257

Julie Taymor also directed the movie Titus, based on Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Polymath257

Julie Taymor also directed the movie Titus, based on Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus

Taymor is something else, isn't she?

And Titus Andronicus is utterly brutal -- a lot of people have trouble with it. Taymor's handling of the brutalized Lavinia (Titus's daughter) is just gruesome. And Anthony Hopkins is brilliant in dealing with rapists Chiron and Demetrius (and serving up their heads cooked in a pie to their mother! (I confess, I loved it.)

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, I won't ever see a movie of a Shakespeare play until I actually know it well from the play itself (reading or a good production on stage).

Movies can fill up a lot of a viewers attention with gorgeous visuals and movement that simply aren't available on stage -- so a movie screen play can't contain half of all the words that would appear on stage. (Even on stage, it is very rare for a director to keep all of the words of any play.)

OK, I was able to get through the movie "The Merchant of Venice". That alone is a miracle.

I'll give my thoughts once I have had a chance to think them over.

 

[blü 2]

My tendency is not to provide "side by side" translation, because it gives the reader the chance to ignore Shakespeare's words and, more importantly, cadence. Rather, I like to explain what the unfamiliar words and phrases mean (or odd usages of familiar words), and then have the reader go through Shakespeare's own words again.

I also like to make sure they have the cadence of blank verse firmly in their heads as they read, but then read the words as we would most naturally stress them. That really helps to show Shakespeare's intention, because stressed words or syllables in the off-beat position just naturally take on a new importance by ear alone. So take two lines:

"Why should a man, whose blood is warm within,
Sit like his grandsire cut in alabaster?"

In blank verse, the first words, "why" and "sit" would be unstressed -- but it is natural for us to stress them, and because they're in the off-beat position, we hear them as even more stressed. This gives importance to the whole question, and that makes sense because Gratiano really is trying to reach Antonio -- to try to help cheer him up.

Read properly, that just pops right out at you.

I agree with all of that. Shakespeare's facility with lines of verse is remarkable, as you say, with his use of promotions to put that skip into a line of IP ─ Why should a man ─ and his instinct with feminine line endings ─ alibaster ─ and his fine poetic ear for these things, right up there with Tennyson's.

But I understood @Polymath to be saying he wasn't up to the sounds-of-the-words part yet, still finding the sense-of-the-words elusive, so it appears for him the sounds aren't yet helpful to the meaning.

 

[Rival]

But it is very rich: you cannot hope to read the plays like a novel.

This is one major issue I have with how Shakspeare is taught. He wrote plays and so they should be performed, not read. I find this method of teaching quite bizarre. Take the kids to a theatre to see it performed; have the kids perform it etc. Would also be so much more immersive and fun; you'd learn through doing, essentially.

 

[exchemist]

This is one major issue I have with how Shakspeare is taught. He wrote plays and so they should be performed, not read. I find this method of teaching quite bizarre. Take the kids to a theatre to see it performed; have the kids perform it etc. Would also be so much more immersive and fun; you'd learn through doing, essentially.

I agree but you need both, I think. If you just see it performed, cold, a lot goes over your head first time round. We used to read scenes aloud in class, with different people taking different parts, then stop and go over it, analysing the main speeches and discussing the imagery. So one had the challenge of trying to read out the words as an actor would, injecting the right stress to make it make sense. (I had to do Juliet's speech before she takes the sleeping draught, I remember.....bloody Tybalt, yet green in earth lies festering in his shroud.....madly play with my forefathers' joints......) Active participation was very helpful. And then we'd go and see it performed (or watch the Zeffirelli film, which came out that year, - ooh Olivia Hussey.... That film is the only time I've been in the cinema and an audible sigh went up at the end of the first half, when the lights came up. )

 

[Rival]

I agree but you need both, I think. If you just see it performed, cold, a lot goes over your head first time round. We used to read scenes aloud in class, with different people taking different parts, then stop and go over it, analysing the main speeches and discussing the imagery. So one had the challenge of trying to read out the words as an actor would, injecting the right stress to make it make sense. (I had to do Juliet's speech before she takes the sleeping draught, I remember.....bloody Tybalt, yet green in earth lies festering in his shroud.....madly play with my forefathers' joints......) Active participation was very helpful. And then we'd go and see it performed (or watch the Zeffirelli film, which came out that year, - ooh Olivia Hussey.... That film is the only time I've been in the cinema and an audible sigh went up at the end of the first half, when the lights came up. )

This is basically what we did with A Doll's House (albeit not Shakspeare, obviously, but we did study Othello though I don't remember much about that).

 

[Polymath257]

This is one major issue I have with how Shakspeare is taught. He wrote plays and so they should be performed, not read. I find this method of teaching quite bizarre. Take the kids to a theatre to see it performed; have the kids perform it etc. Would also be so much more immersive and fun; you'd learn through doing, essentially.

I have been to several productions as well as attempted to watch several movies. Until today, I was pretty lost in all of them.

Today, I was able, with a fair amount of doubling back, to figure out what was being said and how it related to what the actors were doing. This is a first.

It was exhausting, though.

Clearly, Shylock was being portrayed in a favorable light in this movie, probably much more favorably that Shakespeare would have intended. As I saw it, he was the most sympathetic character of the whole production. I also noted how the women were far superior to the men in their wit and abilities to manipulate things.

 

[blü 2]

I *sort of* see that what you wrote corresponds to what is written. But I have *no* idea how you came to that.

When I was doing high school Shakespeare some of it was simply straightforward, and some I had to bog my way through, but perhaps the important thing is that I enjoyed it. I also had a sponge memory so I could take the parts I liked with me.

Does that interpretation come naturally to you? How did you arrive at it?

I read the passage then line by line or line-group by group, I paraphrased the lines with a moment or two's thought about how best to convey the intent of the words as I perceived it. It was considered, not instant, in other words, but it wasn't hard.

But above you said, "I cannot even tell what the movies are saying after the first couple of minutes".

If you don't mind my asking, did you have any problem with lectures? With the TV news? With your tech books? What kind of fiction do you like to read? In what areas is it a problem?

 

[Polymath257]

I agree with all of that. Shakespeare's facility with lines of verse is remarkable, as you say, with his use of promotions to put that skip into a line of IP ─ Why should a man ─ and his instinct with feminine line endings ─ alibaster ─ and his fine poetic ear for these things, right up there with Tennyson's.

I don't understand this at all. how are those feminine endings?

But I understood @Polymath to be saying he wasn't up to the sounds-of-the-words part yet, still finding the sense-of-the-words elusive, so it appears for him the sounds aren't yet helpful to the meaning.

Yes, my problem is understanding what the words mean in context. Reading them out loud fails for me because I can never get enough of the sense to know what is going on. I find myself stumbling at every line with no comprehension to back up the words I am saying.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree with all of that. Shakespeare's facility with lines of verse is remarkable, as you say, with his use of promotions to put that skip into a line of IP ─ Why should a man ─ and his instinct with feminine line endings ─ alibaster ─ and his fine poetic ear for these things, right up there with Tennyson's.

But I understood @Polymath to be saying he wasn't up to the sounds-of-the-words part yet, still finding the sense-of-the-words elusive, so it appears for him the sounds aren't yet helpful to the meaning.

A good thought. Here is a list of the most usual archaic words Shakespeare uses. It's not long, so you get used to them very quickly, and that can really speed up comprehension.

An - If
Anon – Now, at once, shortly
Art – Are
Aye – Yes
Beseech – To beg
Betwixt – Between
Dost/Doth – Do, does E
re – Before
Fain – Ready, willing
Fie – Shame!
Forsooth – Indeed, for real, homies!
Hast/hath – has
Hence -- from here, from now on
Hither – here
Marry – A transition or intro to a sentence, like how we say, “Well” or “Ya know.”
Morrow – Morning
Nay – No
Perchance – Maybe, possibly
Shrift – Confession (a Catholic tradition of confessing one’s sins to a priest)
Soft – Stop! Be quiet! Hold on!
Tis – It is
Thee/Thou – You
Thine/Thy – Your (possessive)
Thither – There
Whence/Whither – Where?
Wherefore – Why? (does not mean: Where?)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is one major issue I have with how Shakspeare is taught. He wrote plays and so they should be performed, not read. I find this method of teaching quite bizarre. Take the kids to a theatre to see it performed; have the kids perform it etc. Would also be so much more immersive and fun; you'd learn through doing, essentially.

Quite right! In fact, when I read a play (and I do, lots), I always "act." Well, usually under my breath and trying to keep the body language discreet -- but I always read as if I am playing all the roles. It really helps me to grok what I'm reading.

 

[exchemist]

I have been to several productions as well as attempted to watch several movies. Until today, I was pretty lost in all of them.

Today, I was able, with a fair amount of doubling back, to figure out what was being said and how it related to what the actors were doing. This is a first.

It was exhausting, though.

Clearly, Shylock was being portrayed in a favorable light in this movie, probably much more favorably that Shakespeare would have intended. As I saw it, he was the most sympathetic character of the whole production. I also noted how the women were far superior to the men in their wit and abilities to manipulate things.

Well that's the point with Shylock. Shakespeare gives him that powerful speech about Hath not a Jew eyes?....if you prick us do we not bleed? etc. So he is critiquing the cruel antisemitism that people of his time so often assumed without thought. You see both sides of the issue. It is far from black and white. Yes Shylock's demand for his pound of flesh is barbarous, but then what has he had to put up with - all his life - from these Christians that think themselves superior and treat him as an outcast, while actually needing his financial acumen? Partly they hate him because they need him, even! (1920s Germany, anyone?)

And yes, the women in Shakespeare - as in real life - are just as often powerful characters as the men.