William Shakespeare (humbly submitted)

This topic may very well break the record for time it takes to disappear off the first page, and I may succeed only in placing myself firmly on everyone's "ignore list", but I'll proceed if only because of the slight chance you all may surprise me.

I was wondering what you all think about Shakespeare.

Since I graduated from college with a BFA in Theatre, I've gotten most of my acting work doing classical theatre, mostly Bill Shakespeare. I spent the last two Summers out at a theatre in Wisconsin. It's called the American Players Theatre, and it's one of the largest classical Summer Repertories in the nation. The patrons of that theatre come from all around......Illinois, Idaho, Minnesota, everywhere in the area....and they make a real event out of it. Whole families come every year and make it a kind of family vacation. The theatre is set on the top of a hill in the middle of nowhere, but in a little over twenty years, it's become extremely successful.

And the audiences are like no other audiences in the country. They actually listen . They come for the love of the work. For those of you who are actors, you probably have no idea what it's like to perform Shakespeare in front of an audience and hear them chuckling in appreciation.....not at cheap, physical humor....but at the subtle irony and play on words that Shakespeare very often used.

So many contemporary theatres in this country feel they have to make Shakespeare "flashy" in order for it to appeal to today's audiences. They'll do everything they can to keep the audience's interest, taking for granted that, if they don't, they'll lose everyone's interest. APT takes a kind of novel approach to Shakespeare's text. They actually trust that the audience members each possess a brain, and that they understand English.

They just serve up the language. They enunciate, and concentrate on the language, letting the text do the work for them.

And the audience listens.

They laugh. They have a marvelous time. They cry. They walk away having shared a special experience. There is nothing like it.

I believe that William Shakespeare is the single greatest writer in the history of the English language. Noone has ever come close.

I'm curious as to what your experiences have been with Shakespeare. I am convinced that, for the most part, if you don't enjoy Shakespeare, it's because you've never seen Shakespeare performed well . There is a lot of bad Shakespeare being done out there.

What was your first experience with Billy Boy? What plays of his did you read in school?

I would appreciate and value all comments, both positive and negative. I only ask that you give some reasons behind your opinion.

Again, maybe noone will be at all interested in this topic. I am, however, and I am desperately curious as to what your opinions are on William Shakespeare.

 

Thanks, Princess and Jeff.

I'm always pleasantly surprised when I meet someone who actually enjoys reading Shakespeare. I enjoy it, but that's because I've worked so closely with it. Before I started working with the text, I didn't particularly enjoy reading his plays. I didn't hate it, but I didn't enjoy it, either. There's a simple reason for that, I think. They weren't meant to be read.

Shakespeare is meant to be seen and heard. That's the intent with which they were written. Billy wrote his plays in parts for each individual actor, written on rolled up pieces of parchment that contained only the actor's lines and the cue lines leading into them. That's where we get the term role. His plays weren't actually written in complete book form until after his death.


I've gone around to numerous schools and taught workshops on Shakespeare. One of the most common complaints I hear from the students that I've spoken to is that Shakespeare is too hard to understand.

"He wrote the way they talked back then," they say.

That's only partly true. He did make certain contemporary references that are lost on today's audiences, myself included for the most part. But he didn't use all that many. When I hear this particular complaint, I always respond,

"So, you think it was easier for people living in that time to understand what the actors were saying? Is that right?"

To which they invariably respond,

"Yeah, sure."

That's when I really get them.

In Shakespeare's time, the English language was still very much in a development process. It was in a state of perpetual growth, and much of that growth came from the writing of the time. Noone, I think, had a greater influence on the English language during Shakespeare's time than Billy boy himself.

During his lifetime, while writing his plays and sonnets, William Shakespeare made up over 50,000 words.

Made them up.

That's a conservative estimate. Many think the number is closer to 100,000.

Now, a lot of the words were a combination or usage of words that had never been introduced before. "Upstairs", for instance. Shakespeare created the word "upstairs." Now, they had the word "up", and they had the word "stairs". But noone had ever put them together and used them in that way before. So the people of that time were hearing these words for the first time. Words that we today have grown up our whole lives with. So do you really think people of that time had it any easier understanding the particulars of the language than we do?

Nope.

That, for one, demonstrates his genius.

What is more demonstrative, however, is the fact that you don't need to understand every word to understand exactly what is happening on stage. You don't have to know what a "fardel" is to know what Hamlet means when he's contemplating suicide.
It's a bundle, by the way....a load that you carry.
So when Hamlet says, "Who would fardels bare, to grunt and sweat under a weary life" , you nod and say, "Not me. I don't know what a fardel is, but I sure wouldn't bare it.....not if it involves all that grunting and sweating under a weary life."

That's the genius.

As an actor, I love nothing more than to have the opportunity to say his lines. You don't find them anywhere else. Shakespeare never just said anything, and thank God! He wouldn't just say, "I'm going to kill you for this." No, he says, "Cry Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war."

My favorite passage is in Richard II. A beautiful play, by the way. Some of the most stunning language in the canon is in that play. Probably a difficult read, but who knows? Try it, Jeff, and let me know. Anyway, King Richard has been deposed by Bollingbroke, the son of a loyal subject whom Richard had wronged. Richard had gone off to war, only to come back and find that, in his absence, Bollingbroke had taken his kingdom by force while the bulk of Richards army was away. And what's left of Richard's forces have changed sides and sworn alliegance to Bollingbroke. There's a famous, wonderful scene where Richard is told all of this horrible news all at once, and he goes into one of the more famous sililoquies in the canon. He is almost laughing at himself, and how absurd the whole illusion of royalty is. (something we might be able to identify with today) For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of Kings.

Anyway, my favorite passage comes in Act IV, when Richard has been called to the throne room(what was once his throne room) so that he may give the crown over to Bollingbroke in view of everyone. Bollingbroke wanted no question of the legitimacy of his kingship.(something else we can identify with today) Anyway, this is the final humiliation for Richard. This is the last, most awful insult. He basically says that he wishes he were dead, that he would just disappear never to be seen again.

But Shakespeare doesn't just say that. Oh, no. No, instead Billy comes through with one of the most beautiful and spine-tingling lines in all of literature. Picture a hushed throne room. Everyone feels embarrassed for Richard, and he is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, as he has lost everything(and ultimately gained everything). He has just gone on a tirade about the swerving loyalty of those he had once called his friends. Then he gets really quiet, looks around the room at all of those familiar faces, and says,


"Oh, to be a mockery king of snow,
Standing before the sun of Bollingbroke
To melt myself away in water drops."

If you take your time with that line, and give every word the weight that the situation demands, paying special attention to the last ten syllables, there is not a more effective piece of verse to have the utter pleasure of being able to deliver.

Anyway, I could go on.

 

Again, Shakespeare's a tough read, but a wonderful experience. I respect the hell out of anyone that reads him for enjoyment that doesn't work intimately with his text.

I equate it to reading music, really, which is approriate since I find Shakespeare to be the closest the English language can come to music without instruments. Reading sheet music, for those that know how to do it, is not generally very interesting. Listening to the music on CD or tape is worlds better by the very nature of it. But actually seeing the music in concert.......well, no forum beats the concert for appreciating music. At least, I don't think so.

It's the same with Shakespeare.

 

mcmark,

I agree completely. I still remember just about every piece I've committed to memory. Some I'd have to go back and look at. It's been a while since I played Edmund in Lear, but I bet it wouldn't take me too long to get it back. Talk about a fun role!

haven,

Bottom's great!!! What a blast of a role. I played Tom Snout (wall) and Moth a couple of Summers ago. We had so much fun every time it came to perform "Pyramus and Thisby"!!!

BobFinn*,

Thanks for the link! I haven't come across that before.....



I'm still positive there's a "but" before "thinking"......it doesn't scan any other way......


RocketRaccoon,

DAMN RIGHT you were missing something. I think you're strengthening my point. Shakespeare should be seen and heard.....that's the way it was intended. I urge you to go and see some productions. The trouble with telling you that is I'm afraid you might run into some bad Shakespeare. It's always a danger, and I believe there's more bad Shakespeare out there than good. You have to keep trying if that's the case. You'll know the bad Shakespeare when you can't tell who is who or what's going on. Simple. If you can't understand the story, and there's no extenuating circumstances, than that's the fault of the production.....not you. I'm afraid too many people go to see bad Shakespeare and come away feeling stupid because they didn't get it, chalking it up to something that's "just not my thing".

This is a bold statement, but it's one I believe. If Shakespeare bores you in production, that's our fault. It's the fault of those bringing you the production. One of the most frustrating comments I'll hear after a performance is, "The actors were great, too bad Shakespeare's so boring."

AAAAaaaaarrrrgggg!!!!!

If it bored you, than I wasn't great. I didn't do my job. I was bad . Plain and simple. It's all about communication and lifting the text into the night.


Grizzled,

Thanks for the links....I'll look them up.

The only problem I have with putting those interesting little "twists" on Shakespeare is that I feel they often limit the text more than help it. Shakespeare is timeless. There's nothing wrong with presenting it that way. Too many theatres get caught up in the "need" to find a "fresh way to look at it." That's all fine and good, but if the design concept dictates the story being told, then I think the meaning is lost. It becomes something else. Just my opinion, though.