Accessible Shakespeare

[Laineee]

A conversation with a colleague about why people are put off seeing Shakespeare (mainly due to the perception that they wouldn't understand the language), got me racking my brain on how to change their mind.

Has anyone successfully managed to convert a sceptic? And if so, what do you think would be the most accessible play for a newcomer to the bard?

[Deleted]

I was a sceptic. Studied it at school, hated it, came back as an adult, realised I was dumb.

On the one hand, most of the plays are equally accessible or inaccessible depending on the quality of production, performance, direction, etc. If you want to win someone over with joy, the Globe's not a bad place to start. If you want to win someone over with clarity, the Tobacco Factory in Bristol excels in this like no other company I've seen.

BUT on the other hand, some of the plays are more accessible than others through sheer cultural familiarity. And when you already know the basics, you can put more of your processing power over to following the language.

As You Like It is relatively easy to follow as long as you know who's gone to the forest and why, and some of the lines are delightfully contemporary ("sell while you can, you are not for all markets" never fails to get a great response). A Midsummer Night's Dream is equally good for combining joy and familiarity. If you don't mind having a go with a tragedy, then Romeo And Juliet has an extremely familiar plot (and the Baz Luhrmann film is both respectful to the text and accessible to the masses), and Hamlet has contributed so many idioms to the English language that as long as you've not gone for an over-long and far too po-faced production, then it's not linguistically hard. Macbeth's not bad either. Henry V is also very easy to follow, plotwise, though it's probably worth mentioning that you're *meant* to find the long speeches at the beginning impenetrable and it's okay to let it all go until "may I with right and conscience make this claim?". And Richard III's basically a bunch of great quotes and a murder spree all shoved together so should also be worth a go.

So there's a couple of Comedies, a few Tragedies, and a couple of Histories. If someone gets through all seven of those and still doesn't like Shakespeare much, then you should leave them be because you know they've tried. But I'd say they're all reasonable plays to look at if you're trying to convince that Shakespeare is easy to understand.

[Laineee]

Thank you both for your helpful replies. I was fortunate to have an excellent English teacher who understood that actually seeing the plays performed was the key to engaging with them, and I've been hooked since about 14 as a result.

I'm going to have to keep my eyes peeled for some quality productions of Baemax's 7 suggestions, although we're not particularly well served by Shakespeare north of the border so it may take some time for me to complete my dastardly plan

[Deleted]

You could always look into the possibility of recorded performances. As mentioned, the Baz Luhrmann Romeo And Juliet really shouldn't be underestimated (just given a little leeway for its more preposterous aspects), and the Ian McKellen Richard III is pretty marvellous. And I'd happily recommend the Globe productions of the Comedies, Macbeth, and Henry V, all of which are available on DVD or here: globeplayer.tv/ (though you may wish to consider substituting the Branagh Henry V for the Dromgoole one if you like your humour a little less broad). As for Hamlet... well, you could do a lot worse than the RSC production with David Tennant. If you have a particular sceptic in mind and you're not just asking on a hypothetical level, anyway.

[Laineee]

I have been set the challenge of converting a particular sceptic, who was put off by both the way it was taught and by a bizarre decision to go to Alan Cumming's one man Macbeth, knowing nothing at all about the play.

I did consider a recorded version (I have a few of the ones you mention), but I think there's something that bit more compelling about the live experience. That said, if nothing good comes up, I might resort to the David Tennant Hamlet after all

[Deleted]

Eeeeek! That's erm... that's one heckuva beginning to overcome. Good luck, and keep us posted!

[Polly1]

The first thing to say is that no should expect to understand every word or even every line of the dialogue - the thing to do is just try to pick up the gist and if it's a good production, the plot will be made very clear.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Much Ado About Nothing, which I've always found very accessible, it has the second highest amount of prose in it (after Merry Wives) plus laughter, tension, surprise and tears. I hesitate to recommend the Tennant version on Digital Player as Tate was so ordinary but there are many other filmed versions available eg. the recent RSC one with Bennett/Terry and the Globe one with Edwards/Best. And always the Ken and Em film of course, but that's heavily cut (actually the Joss Wheedon one is pretty good, too, now I remember).

I also think the Globe film of their Merry Wives would be good, it was hysterical live.

[lynette]

The deep emotion is very simply expressed eg 'horror, horror...' , the visual jokes still work eg the basket in Merry Wives and the wonderful Dream Pyramus and Thisbe ( apparently this is being pronounced in a lovely Brummie way as Thisbaay in Stratford right now) and most of the bits in between come across if acted well. I defy anyone to say they couldn't understand the recent As You Like It at the NT. But there are passages which are deliberately complicated, eg the twisty stuff in Antony and Cleopatra and Troilus and Cressida though the emotion usually commands in both plays.
I was lucky: my first experience of Shakespeare in the theatre was the RSC through some pretty good years. And in school we always acted the plays in the classroom, pushing back the desks and letting rip ( my Bottom particularly noted ....) right up until the sixth form when we sat sedately round a table.
Let's see what the new regime at the Globe achieves. She might be on to something with some editing. But if you tell them the story beforehand and make the experience lots of fun ...chocolates and a nice supper worked for mine...the kids will get it. Children after all are fine with the new language of the Internet and its ironies.

[Deleted]

I think there's also an issue of age and experience. I dutifully went to Shakespeare plays during my 20s but it wasn't till I got to my 30s and became disappointed in life, cynical, aware of death, heartbroken, etc, that it really started to speak to me.

So there's something to look forward to kidz...!

[peggs]

What a good thread. I personally found Shakespeare at school pretty dull, we read it without understanding it and in a you read 4 lines and then move on which obviously didn't help and watched what seemed like very long, brown (I remember everyone wearing fur) old videos. The first proper play I sure was the Henry IVs and haven't looked back. I agree people fear they won't understand it and think they have to get it all were as others have noted you don't. I've taken my mum to the Globe a few times and she didn't know the plays and had good fun as it's accessible. I'm really hoping my nieces get into it as they get older but we'll see. Just maybe if you can make sure you've read a few reviews of a production before you go in case it's dire.

On a slightly different note star casting does get a lot of new people to shakespeare who wouldn't usually go, people at work went to the Barbican Hamlet because of BC when they wouldn't have otherwise touched with a barge pole.

[Laineee]

I think the fear of not understanding every word is spot on, Peggs. I've tried to explain that you really don't need to follow it perfectly to enjoy it - even with an English degree there are some passages that still leave me perplexed.

I also agree that star casting has helped to open it up for a lot of people - it entices them in and they realise it's not as scary as they thought.

I have at least made some progress with my colleague as he's agreed to come with me to see a play.... but I will have to choose very carefully!

[joem]

Macbeth is by far the most accessible play. Wouldn't bother taking an unbeliever to a comedy or one of the pastoral plays.

I found Henry VI to be a revelation when I first saw it but three parts is two too many for a beginner.

I just wonder how much the kind of people who can't be bothered with Shakespeare would understand of anything modern which is semi-serious to be honest.

[kathryn]

Star casting really does seem to be the best way in for a lot of newbies, because when people are going just to watch a star they're not usually so put off at the thought that they might not understand it.
Hanging around in various 'fan' spaces I've often seen people suggest reading a plot synopsis first, which can reassure - though that does mean losing the delicious experience of seeing it for the first time without knowing the ending, which must be a powerful factor in getting people hooked.

[kathryn]

Feb 25, 2016 22:04:54 GMT joem said:

Macbeth is by far the most accessible play. Wouldn't bother taking an unbeliever to a comedy or one of the pastoral plays..

[

It depends how funny the comedy is! I wouldn't have hesitated to take a newbie to the Tennant/Tate Much Ado or the Globe 12th Night, because so much f the humour was physical/visual, so you didn't need to follow the language to get the jokes.

[joem]

Feb 26, 2016 19:22:58 GMT kathryn said:

Feb 25, 2016 22:04:54 GMT joem said:

Macbeth is by far the most accessible play. Wouldn't bother taking an unbeliever to a comedy or one of the pastoral plays..

[

It depends how funny the comedy is! I wouldn't have hesitated to take a newbie to the Tennant/Tate Much Ado or the Globe 12th Night, because so much f the humour was physical/visual, so you didn't need to follow the language to get the jokes.

Since Shakespeare's plays,for obvious reasons, don't benefit from detailed stage directions we have to assume that at least some of the physical/visual elements are peculiar to the production. I think it's essential to have at least a fair understanding of the language to "get" the plays. I was really referring to the jokes in the play which re of their time and haven't weathered as well as the tragedies.

[DuchessConstance]

I took someone who'd never been to the theatre before to the Tennant and Tate Much Ado (though as his second show, just after Ghost Stories).

[Deleted]

Perhaps you could first find out the types of performance that the sceptic most likes, and then look for a Shakespeare production with the style of performance or direction or design or ambience or attitude that they are most likely to relate to. And I agree about relaxing the sceptic beforehand with a brief verbal synopsis or pointers about what they might be interested to look out for or notice.

[Nicholas]

Start with cinema! Shakespeare and chill. Surely that’s it? Nothing lost by sitting in your front room and watching a movie for free: if you like it, great!, and if you don’t, all that’s lost is a little time and no money. In privacy, your friend is also allowed to ask questions about character, plot and meaning that they might need to ask but, obviously, cannot ask in the theatre, so you’d probably be doing them a favour. Even the best, most accessible plays can be mucked up on stage (agree about Macbeth, but imagine if the tedious Young Vic one was your first), but a couple of tried and tested movies can be guaranteed to be good, accessible and fun, and the nature of watching in the comfort of your own home negates the problems you might have from it live. I know lots of people who wouldn’t otherwise see Shakespeare LOVED the Hollow Crown, so might be somewhere to start. I’d recommend the Luhrman R+J (because it’s ‘accessible’ and ‘modern’ we watched it twice a year for five odd years at school so I hate it to high heaven, but have to concede it’s a good movie for a first-timer), probably the Tennant Hamlet although the Gibson one was on last night and I’d forgotten how good it was, and Branagh’s Much Ado for a comedy, though if they’re willing to have a slightly longer evening then definitely the possibly definitive Globe Henry IV with Roger Allam, for obvious reasons: you can guarantee everything there is to love about Shakespeare is in that one show (I didn’t see that at the Globe, only on the telly, but that’s got to be one of the underrated high watermarks of filmed Shakespeare, what a movie it makes!).

Also, to counteract the issues with language, a Globe-to-Globe foreign one might be a great place to start. With language stripped away, you can switch off that intellectual side of your brain and just focus on character, action and plot, and knowing how that works, you might convince them. But I can imagine your colleague might not be best pleased should you go in on Monday and say “Good news, I’ve bought you tickets for a Shakespeare where I guarantee you not understanding some of it won’t be a problem – because it’s in Lithuanian and you won’t understand ANY of it! Bullet dodged there, eh?”

[Laineee]

Great post, Nicholas. Given the apparent shortage of Shakespeare up here this year, I think I'm going to have to go with the film option and give him a choice of the Tennant Hamlet or Much Ado, and possibly even the Hollow Crown (Henry V being probably the best option of these).
A date has been set for 2 weeks hence, so I shall report back

[kathryn]

The Whedon Much Ado is well worth a watch, too.