Shakespeare

[SusanAR]

How do you handle Shakespeare? I have a hard time reading the longer plays (Macbeth, Hamlet). It is hard to keep up with the play format. We have read JC and the Sophocles trilogy, but these seem to be more of a challenge. I'm thinking we should watch the movies first and then read them?? Watch the movies only???

[MIch elle]

...We read the Lois Burdett version and then read the Oxford School Shakespeare versions one act at a time; then watched that act on DVD (from library - now we use Netflix). It took a few weeks to complete each play.

 

The Oxford versions have a synopsis and commentary for each act that we read BEFORE reading that act. We would also read the vocabulary on the side before reading the act too. I used Discovering Shakespeare's Language worksheets and we memorized parts of each play.

 

I really like the Oxford School Shakespeare series!

Edited February 2, 2010 by MIch elle
added link

[Guest]

We won free tickets to a local Shakespeare comedy when my daughter was nine; she has been going to the summer Shakespeare festival ever since. At first I would read a plot summary to her before we went, but she didn't seem to need it. Any child who has been immersed in language and reading will stand a pretty good chance of catching on to the comedies, which are often staged with really oversized physical gestures and slapstick stuff.

 

My daughter went from seeing the plays to asking to read them so that she could re-enact scenes she particularly liked. This is a small but perfectly reasonable way to start, I think; no need to jump into the full-scale plays to read right away. You can do exactly the same thing with DVD versions; comparing versions is really fun if your child takes to a particular play.

 

Comedies worked for us for a number of years before I took her to see "Hamlet" -- she was twelve and loved it. This summer we're seeing "King Lear." She is now turning fourteen and ready to read -- and read EAGERLY -- the full plays.

 

The plays were meant to be seen, so that should be your first approach. Reading them is hard, so I'd aim for finding anything that the kids can do to make the reading (when you get to it) meaningful as well as fun. I have read about kids who made computer shows of scenes using Lego figures. It also seems it would be very useful to get a handful of kids and have everyone play director: here's the play, here's this scene, how will we have the actors stand? What physical actions should they perform? How should they emphasize certain parts of their dialogue? If you get kids into capes and have them use wooden swords or other simple props they can have a lot of fun with this and learn a lot at the same time.

 

A teacher in the LA city schools, Rafe Esquith, has his fifth graders perform a full Shakespeare play each year. I think there is a short video available on the internet interviewing him and showing the kids performing part of a scene; he also describes the process in his books, which you could get at the library.

[Cedarmom]

We listened to an audo version while we read along. Then we watched the movie

[Guest]

So sorry -- I jump between the K-8 and this board because my daughter is in the middle of 8th grade; and I realize my comments must have sounded really out of place here when I saw your son is 16.

 

I'd stick with my general idea, however, that seeing the plays first is the best way not to turn kids off to Shakespeare. See if you have a local theater that is performing any of the plays and see if you can get a school discount -- you can sometimes get into plays for as little as $5, but even if you have to pay more than that there should be a student or school-group price. I have been really impressed with our local Shakespeare productions.

 

I'd also start with comedies, because as I said they are easier to grasp, being made up in good part of the physical stage action/overaction.

 

When you move on to tragedies or histories, compare film versions -- this is a terrific way to talk about how the text is not "set" in some way. Often the plays exist in various versions used by various directors, even back as far as the 17th century. What did they cut and why? How do the cuts shape your view of the characters and your reactions? What version of Hamlet, for instance, or Richard III, sticks with you most and why? It's also great fun to see productions set in different eras and places and discuss why in the world a director thought this would be good; did it work, and if so, how? (I remember a "Taming of the Shrew" in which motorcycles were ridden out onto stage...)

 

I think going back to the texts to figure out this sort of question is more focused and therefore more manageable than trying to understand the whole play, or the even more abstract idea of "Shakespeare," than plunging into reading straight away.

[Michelle in AL]

Plays are meant to be seen, without the actor's actions and voice tone and inflections, half of the meaning is lost.

 

A play first would be the best option.

 

2nd option would be to watch a DVD production.

 

You can do the DVD option by watching all of it first than reading or watch and act, read an act.

 

We're doing A Midsummer's night dream now. Seeing the play first really helped. As I teach it, I really think listening to an audio version while reading would help to.

 

I teach this in a class setting, so it's a little different. We do a lot of drama with our reading.

[lllll]

How do you handle Shakespeare? I have a hard time reading the longer plays (Macbeth, Hamlet). It is hard to keep up with the play format. We have read JC and the Sophocles trilogy, but these seem to be more of a challenge. I'm thinking we should watch the movies first and then read them?? Watch the movies only???

 

25yos was nearby when I clicked on your post. I asked him about it because he loves plays and lit. Here are his suggestions:

 

Having a special interest in literature and theater, I have developed my own methods of reading plays. I have read Greek and Roman, Russian, British, French, American, and Shakespeare plays, and found the Bard to be THE MOST difficult. That's because he's the most brilliiant, though, so whatever you do, DON'T just watch videos of the plays. Admittedly, that's the way the English first saw the plays, but Elizebethan England (and Europe) was steeped in theater and familiar with the speech patterns and vocabulary, so they could keep up with ideas without being bogged down by the format. Not so for us earthlings.

So what do I do to understand the Bard? It varies, but usually I get a broad idea of the setting and players, and then read a BASIC outline (I have an old book by an Englishter). The outline provides me with the broad structure in which to place the events, so that I won't have to worry about understanding the plot amidst the complexities of Shakespeare's style, diction, and execution of the events, which is where his brilliance lies (he had very few original plots). I have yet to read a Shakespeare play in one sitting. I can do such with Aeschylus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Moliere, Plautus, and the later Russians and Americans, but there is too much in Shakespeare to even hope to catch it all that quickly. Most of the time the communication is taking place in innuendo, double-entendres (not the crude kind), and sarcasm!

This is the reason that I NEVER watch a movie or reenactment of one of his plays without first reading it: I miss most of the content and practically all of the brilliance. Even if I have read the play, I miss much of the content in the rapid-fire of a reenactment, especially when you consider that Hollywood productions have time limits which require them to either speed through the dialogue or significantly edit it.

As to the importance of intonations and tone. It may have once mattered, but no one is absolutely certain what the original speech patterns and tones of the actors were, and in today's retarded Post-Modern world of art, the emphasis is not put on what Shakespeare and his crews originally meant so much as what the modern critics can read into his plays. Ditch all modern criticism. Furthermore, actors have big egos and irrepressible personalities. They don't enter a Shakespeare play thinking, "How can I best represent what the Bard was originally trying to communicate?" They enter thinking, "What new, uniquely ME spin can I put on this character that will make the character profound and fabulous?" And it changes with time according to our culture's speech patterns and attitudes. Orson Welle's MacBeth was gothic and Film-Noir, Elizabeth Taylor's Taming of the Shrew smells of the sixties, and modern renditions of things like As You Like It seem to go overboard on the import of the flashy actors. (Also, many of the modern versions are filled with nudity, and you can bet THAT wasn't on the stage in the time of Puritan England.) The only way to understand best what the original spirit of the play was is to be intimately familiar with the historical context. I won't even suggest that the English are the best representatives of Shakespeare, because they've been living with his plays for so many centuries I think they're getting sick of him (there was recently a series on the BBC called 'Shakespeare Retold,' which looked pretty tacky.) There is a similar spirit in America.

I'm not saying to NOT watch a rendition of it. (I actually haven't been to any live ones, so I can't advise against them with any credibility.) I'm just saying to read it--no, study the play first, and then seek live versions. Furthermore, if you want to carefully study the words and how they sound when performed, skip the video and find an audio version in your local library. Then you won't be distracted by the production crew's attempts to put their own spin on the play with unusual sets. (After all, Shakespeare's plays were originally performed on bare stages without special effects, without many props, and without women!)

With one of my favorite plays, Midsummer Night's Dream, I did the following: Read it carefully, listened to a versions on tape, read it again, watched a video version, and listened to another version on tape, all over the course of three years. With plays that aren't personal favorites, usually it was enough to read an outline, read the play, and then either find a BOT or a DVD.

Even with all of this study, one may still miss much of Shakespeare's brilliance. That's why he's considered one of the most brilliant writers in the history of the literature and theater. His plays are edifices of poetry and theater. So don't feel disappointed if you or your child misses something...or everything.

[Lori D.]

Ideally we shoot for this order:

1. Read aloud a 1-2 page summary or overview of the play so we have a vague idea going into the play who-is-who, and what will happen.

2. Watch a staged version, or a film version, for hearing the language, enjoying the interactions, seeing the plot unfold.

3. Read aloud/discuss the play together, with a lit. guide, to pick up on language nuances and themes we missed while watching. Sparknotes and Cliffs Notes are helpful free online guides.

 

 

Of course, I don't think we've done one yet as above (lol), and we've still really enjoyed various plays:

 

- Macbeth we just read aloud/discussed together with the Parallel Shakespeare book and student workbook, and Brightest Heaven of Invention (Christian guide to 6 plays). I think we also watched the Japanese samurai adaptation on film: Throne of Blood.

- Midsummer Night's Dream, we took 15 minutes to read the 2-page bathroom reader version while I sketched out the characters and their complicated interactions on the whiteboard, right before going to a stage version.

- Much Ado About Nothing, we enjoyed watching the film version, and months later, DSs asked to watch it again.

- Taming of the Shrew, one DS read it on his own, and then together we watched the 1980s John Cleese TV version.

 

 

Over the summer, I hope to have us watch a film version of 1 or 2 plays. Next year we're shooting for both a tragedy and a comedy to watch/read/study. Enjoy your Shakespeare adventures! Warmest regards, Lori D.

[SusanAR]

Thanks for all of the replies. Actually the question was more for me. My ds loves literature and has read more Great Books than I:001_smile: . My plan was to study Hamlet this year (we have studied others previously), but he wants to study others as well (Henry V) To me, Hamlet is more complex, and I'm having a difficult time keeping up.

Sooo, I'm revamping our schedule by adding more Shakespeare and trying to read ahead. It's giving me a headache.

This is the kid who insisted upon reading The Aeneid last year because "you can't read The Iliad and The odyssey and NOT read The Aeneid!"

Uhhh, to me you can!:D

Thanks

Edited February 3, 2010 by SusanAR
Too many smiley faces!!!!

[Guest]

The Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet is great because it is done from the longest text available. You can then contrast that with different, shorter versions -- which most are, because you can't easily stage a 4-hour play. Watching two or three different versions would be a great way to get into the play, because the great critical questions concern Hamlet's character and whether he is mad or sane, and directors can throw your reaction one way or the other through which text they use and how they stage it.

[Julie in MN]

I agree that watching Shakespeare is ideal.

 

But you can also dramatize the play as you read. Dd and I would take parts - usually she'd be all the females or all the males. I'd really exaggerate the wild lines. It all makes so much more sense when you dramatize it as you read. I'd suggest doing that rather than going to an "Americanized" version.

 

As far as reading summaries, I think that something short can help. A list of main characters, or of themes. When I tutor kids, they easily loose interest in long summaries -- those aren't nearly as fun as the actual Shakespeare. But knowing some of the themes (ambition, hearing, irony) and understanding the relationships between the main characters is often very helpful. Also, some info on how many common words and phrases come from Shakespeare often perks up an ear.

 

Julie