Poll: Is shakespeare great?

[doodger]

He is pretty good, but his stories have been copied so much by the media (for example, the lion king and hamlet) that he lost his appeal to me.

 

[BabySinclair]

I've read a fair amount, performed Macbeth, and seen several versions of it, including a 3 man production. While the plots are a bit formulaic, they are well written and are fairly memorable (the histories not withstanding and the better the fool the better the play.)

He was the Quentin Tarantino of his times (though with a broader range)*snip*
And I love the look on the faces of Shakespeare's older and more traditional fans when I compare him to Tarantino. Fuckin' hilarious.

I'll just leave this here

 

[Joccaren]

I find Romeo and Juliet to be absolute drivel but love Macbeth. what did you think of it?

Yeah, agreed that R&J is... yeah...
MacBeth I didn't mind as much. Wouldn't put it as great, but its not bad either. Some parts of it felt off [MacDuff supposedly not being born of woman as he was born through Caesarean Section as one point], and the language was a pain, but the acting was well done.

 

[LongAndShort]

I've read a fair amount, performed Macbeth, and seen several versions of it, including a 3 man production. While the plots are a bit formulaic, they are well written and are fairly memorable (the histories not withstanding and the better the fool the better the play.)

He was the Quentin Tarantino of his times (though with a broader range)*snip*
And I love the look on the faces of Shakespeare's older and more traditional fans when I compare him to Tarantino. Fuckin' hilarious.

I'll just leave this here

That is fantastic, I laughed the whole way through. To pull an old pun from Hamlet, you can bet they spoke of ****-ry matters.

 

[DugMachine]

I had to read Othello in 11th grade and even now out of highschool its still one of my favorite stories.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

While the plots are a bit formulaic, they are well written and are fairly memorable (the histories not withstanding and the better the fool the better the play.)

Shakespeare trivia for you: His fool characters became more sophisticated (Touchstone, for instance) around about 1599 because the former lead comedic actor of the Lord Chamberlain's Men, Will Kempe, left. He was replaced by Robert Armin, and Shakespeare was then writing for someone who had a completely different acting style.

Incidentally, there's some evidence that Kempe and Shakespeare didn't part on good terms, and it's thought that part of Hamlet's speech to the players was aimed at him specifically:

"And let those that play
your clowns speak no more than is set down for them;
for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to
set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh
too; though, in the mean time, some necessary
question of the play be then to be considered:
that's villanous, and shows a most pitiful ambition
in the fool that uses it." --Hamlet, Act III, scene ii

MacBeth I didn't mind as much. Wouldn't put it as great, but its not bad either. Some parts of it felt off [MacDuff supposedly not being born of woman as he was born through Caesarean Section as one point], and the language was a pain, but the acting was well done.

The Macduff Caesarean birth thing isn't really Shakespeare's fault, though--it's directly from his source, the 1587 edition of Holinshed's Chronicles (volume V, page 277):

But Makduffe quicklie auoiding from his horsse, [before] he came at him, answered (with his naked swoord in his hand) saieng: "It is true Makbeth, and now shall thine insatiable crueltie haue an end, for I am euen he that thy wizzards haue told thee of, who was neuer borne of my mother, but ripped out of her wombe:" therewithall he stept vnto him, and slue him in the place.

 

[Baradiel]

Eh. Never really read his stuff. Saw the modern version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonard Diwhatshisface and hated it, so I've not got the best impression of him.

I find it ironic that your avatar is basically what Mr Fry's reaction to your statement would be

OT: I was taught Shakespeare throughout school, and as you get older it gets better. Teaching Shakespeare to Year 7s is pointless in the extreme. They don't care. They won't understand. It needs to be taught by someone who is truly passionate about Shakespeare.

I remember being taught Henry V in GCSE by a teacher who truly love Shakespeare. It was amazing. Hamlet in Year 12. Also taught by someone who enjoyed the language. Both of these teachers were backed up by very well made films of the plays (Kenneth Branaugh as Hamlet is possibly one of my favourite films ever) which certainly helped. It helps visualise the language in an age of visual effects.

Although I think Marlowe's Doctor Faustus comes very close to Hamlet as my favourite play.

 

[Don Savik]

I preferred West Side Story to Romeo And Juliet....

AND I HATE MUSICALS. So....bad writer? I'm no englishographer so I wouldn't know. For his time you can tell he was leagues ahead of most, but alas, like all things, has become a bit too dated. His work just can't make the connection as it does to readers today. The wording used is so nonsensical sometimes I can't even fathom how people in his era talked on a day to day basis. SO I GUESS HE'S "TOO SMART" FOR ME LOL. Anyone can make good poetry, its only a matter of popular opinion to be honest. Are some of his lines clever? Yea, but it still doesn't make it enjoyable.

Plays aren't really.....you know, I think its a medium that's dated as well.

I'd rather play vidya games. Like the rest of everyone here.

 

[Erttheking]

They are dry...really REALLY dry...and not a whole lot happens in them.

Have you actually read them? lol

Most are filled with politics, sexuality, magic, suicide and murder.

Maybe it was a language barrier for you so you did't get the stories and/or your teacher didn't.

Personally I cracked up hearing Hamlet tell his wife to be that she should just become a whore instead of marrying him because his kids would be evil like him lol.

Many modern stories are just retellings of Shakespear.

Allow me to rephrase that, it is true that he can come up with interesting ideas and fascinating situations, but simply reading it and it way that it's worded, it FEELS like nothing is happening. Yeah there was a bit of a language barrier, it makes it easy for me to believe that you can Major in this because I'm pretty sure you need a major to understand it 100%. For the record, I read romeo and juilet, macbeth, king lear, and the tempest.

 

[Dansen]

He's a good writer, he is not overrated at all, I've liked all his works except for Romeo and Juliet, that is by far his worst play.The main characters are boring and Shakespeare kills off Mercucio, the only interesting person in the whole play. I am reading MacBeth right and I'm really liking it.

Best Part:

Murderer: "What, you egg? [Stabbing him] Young fry of treachery!"

Son: "He has killed me, mother. Run away, I pray you!"

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

Allow me to rephrase that, it is true that he can come up with interesting ideas and fascinating situations, but simply reading it and it way that it's worded, it FEELS like nothing is happening.

Well, there's the problem. Shakespeare is kind of dry on the page with big events being denoted by stage directions like "They fight" or "He dies". Some of the really over-the-top moments don't get stage directions at all--King Lear, for instance, has a guy's eyes being torn out on stage, and you can only tell from the dialogue.

To get the full effect, you really have to see Shakespeare being performed by a good company, and especially one that isn't afraid to cut the script down a bit. (I'm enough of a sad nerd to want to see the entire four-hour conflated Hamlet, but not everyone is.)