I was for a long time someone who proclaimed to the skies that
she didn't not like Shakespeare’s plays, but that is no longer the case. I
haven’t seen all of them, but I’ve seen enough of each sort (comedies, tragedies, and histories) to make a reasonable judgment on his writing in general. Of the ones I remember well enough to judge:
Like:
Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh)
Richard II (The Hollow Crown)
Henry IV Part 1 (The Hollow Crown)
Henry IV Part 2 (The Hollow Crown)
Okay:
Much Ado About Nothing (Kenneth Branagh)
Twelfth Night (1996)
Disliked
The Tempest (I was in a school production)
Loathe:
The Merchant of Venice (Lawrence Olivier)
Othello (both the play and Verdi’s opera)
Romeo and Juliet (many different versions, including one
I was in)
*Note: I’ve only seen Verdi’s opera of MacBeth, but I don’t remember it that well.
I’d like to see it.
That’s quite a variety.
For most authors, if I like their writing, I like all or nearly
everything they wrote. So what is it
about Shakespeare that produces such a vast array of responses in me? I really do like (although not adore) the
plays I like, but I can hardly describe the depths of my loathing for the ones
I loathe. Are there any patterns to the
ones I dislike?
Production
Well, I certainly tend to prefer versions I’ve seen that are
fabulously well produced. For example,
the acting in the Hollow Crown series (which includes Richard II, Henry IV
Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V, the last of which I haven’t yet seen but soon will)
is exemplary. It’s very well shot and
directed. The film makers use the film
medium to its full advantage instead of simply shooting straight at whoever is
talking. The actors don’t simply stand
and face the camera while soliloquizing; they use their bodies and the
sets. The cinematographer keeps his
filming varied and interesting. Even when some
of his choices are a little strange (some close close-ups, for example,
occasionally with a wide angle lens), they are purposeful, reasonable, and have the intended effect. So yes, that’s important. Also important to me is that they stay close
to the source material and history. They
don’t fall into the fad that MacBeth
has, wherein the Scottish play never takes place in Scotland.
Comedy
Even in the plays I like, there are invariably a couple of
detestable characters who are meant to pass for comic relief. I think that that’s part of my problem: there
are few things more miserable to watch than something that’s supposed to be
funny but isn’t. What people view as
funny is widely varied, of course. I
highly disliked the much adored Despicable
Me for much that reason: I laughed maybe once through the entire film, and
spent the rest of it thinking, “That isn’t funny.” How miserable! And yet none of my really loathed Shakespeare
plays are comedies; all three are tragedies.
And of my favorites, all are either histories or tragedies; Shakespeare’s
comedies fall right in the middle. So although
I dislike much of his comedy, it’s nowhere near offensive enough to make me
loathe a play.
Characters and Plot
I think what it really comes down to are characters and the
plots they drive. Are the characters a) believable
human beings who are neither heroes nor villains but simply people being people
(such as in Richard II or Henry IV) or are they b) horrible, hypocritical,
vile, venomous, vengeful selfish morons (such as The Merchant of Venice, Othello,
and the Tempest) or are the c) simply too stupid to be believed (Romeo and
Juliet, the Tempest, and Twelfth Night)?*
Food for Thought
Possibly the most interesting thing is . . . why am I
ranting about this? If I thought I hated
Shakespeare (before last week, Hamlet would have been the *only* play on my like list), why do I keep watching his
plays? Why does it matter? Usually if I don’t like an author, I simply
avoid his work. Of the above, I studied
only Romeo and Juliet (about five
times, alas, alas) and the Tempest in
school—so why have I watched a dozen of his plays?
