Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our society is so wrapped up in popular culture, accessible media, stuff that's immediately "relevant," instant gratification, and appreciation of images over words, that I see it as a good thing when students have to face the challenge of stuff like Shakespeare and work themselves a bit in order to (try to) grasp it. It's too easy to give in and "just show a film" or assign a book that's simple to read.
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
To address your question: It can help (compare/contrast) to have students read parts of the original side by side with modernized sections or a film version / Youtube clip (though not as a replacement).
I do this a lot, actually. I like to read an act with them and then show them the corresponding portion of a film version. I find that it works well in instruction as well as holding students' interest.
It's also important that you show a little passion for the material yourself. Excitement is contagious. As with any subject area, though, you'll have students who enthusiastically engage, and then you'll find those who simply grind through the matter, either stubbornly unwilling or genuinely unable to generate interest, despite your best efforts.
I don't know why we have to teach Shakespeare anymore. Maybe an overview of Romeo and Juliet. And something about MacBeth's out out damn spot. And then move on to more interesting, better written stuff.
There is SO MUCH BETTER literature out there than this. Almost all the literature I was forced to read in my youth, which was very boring, and turned everyone off of reading, has been replaced by MUCH better literature.
I'd love to hear you rattle off all this superior literature. I'll be waiting with bated breath.
If you don't have much knowledge about Shakespeare, you probably don't have much knowledge of Western culture. So many of our phrases trace back to his writings. I won't argue that it takes a good teacher to et kids these days interested in it. Frankly, I don't think most teachers are up to it. But I've also found in life that the sort of people who devalue the Classics, the study of old philosophers, old poetry and knowledge for "critical thinking" and "skills" are generally dull, boring people. I doubt most of them are up to understanding things with serious meaning that tax their minds. It's comparable to what we see in popular culture. People like crap. Look at the movies that generally rise to the top of the box office versus genuine works of art in film. Some films of merit attain great success. Most do not. Remember when we have video stores. My general rule was to head to the movies that had one or two copies and avoid the ones that had fifty copies like the plague. Most people are pretty dull and interested in things with little substance. That's reflected in their dislike of genuine art and literature.
The best way to teach Shakespeare is to first attend a performance of one of his plays. They're meant to be seen, heard... performed in front of an audience. Reading one of Shakespeare's plays as one would read a novel leaves out a major component essential to the understanding of his work: the theatre... the performance, the staging, the visual and auditory poetry... the actors. Plays are meant to be seen... moreover, they're meant to be performed... (or at least, read outloud).
I think the best Shakespeare to watch is West Side Story. Yes the ending is different in that she gets to live, but the ending is no less powerful and possibly more relevant for American students.
If you want full Shakespearian language, then go for Franco Zeffirelli's film Romeo and Juliet, 1968. Beautiful photography, acting, and pacing. Despite the Shakespearian language, you do not really notice it. To your ears it sounds like modern English even though it isn't.
I don't know; I think Romeo and Juliet and that film are one of the biggest turnoffs that make high school kids hate Shakespeare. On the other hand Kenneth Branagh's (not the others) version of Henry V hits much of the target for today's teens.
When I was in high school back in the 70s, our textbooks used edited versions of the plays. Apparently parts were too risque for students to read. So our lit teacher (who was excellent) pulled out six or seven of us who had A's to do a special after school study of Othello using an unedited version, culminating in a trip to a university that was doing the play in classic Shakespearian style.
Sexual innuendo, interracial marriage, a devious villain, violence. All risky topics in the 70s small town south. The perfect blend to get a bunch of 17 year olds interested in Shakespeare.
^^^ rosends (the OP), I think tnff has found the perfect solution to your quandary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
