Which Shakespeare Play Tops Your List for Plot, Quotes, or Villainy?

[zoobyshoe]

Mine is A Midsummer Night's Dream. for plot.

Hamlet's the best for quotable speeches.

Richard III is the best for suspense and villainy.

 

[Soilwork]

Macbeth and A Midsummer Night's Dream are my favourites :)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Macbeth and A Midsummer Night's Dream are my favourites :)

Why Macbeth, Soilwork? I find that play just creepy.

 

[Chi Meson]

I saw "Taming of the Shrew" performed in the Itallian "Comedia del Arte" format. That made it by far my favorite comedy.

 

[Soilwork]

It was just a really powerful story of how the thirst for wealth and power corrupts people and how even the people you trust the most can sometimes stab you in the back.
Also a story where good triumphs over evil in the end with Malcolm becoming king after Macduff kills Macbeth.
Great twisted story overall haha :)

 

[Artman]

A Midsummer Night's Dream for the setting and characters.

I also like Taming of the Shrew for dialogue and plot.

And Romeo and Juliette for it's adaptability to contemporary formats.

 

[brewnog]

I like A Midsummer Night's Dream best. There's some terrific puns in there.

 

[arildno]

Soilwork, here's my IMO:
Good does NOT triumph over evil in MacBeth; if that had been the case, it would have been MacDuff who came to reign instead of the nasty Malcolm.

Read again Malcolm's disgusting speeches of self-aggrandizement; he'll turn out just as bad as MacBeth ever were.

However, MacBeth remains my favourite play overall.

 

[Soilwork]

No Malcolm was saying that to test MacDuff's integrity...so he wasn't serious.

 

[arildno]

Sure he was. Read on. He's just a conceited brat.

 

[Soilwork]

haha nah he wasn't
And anyway I thought Shakespeare based MacBeth on the real life king Duncan(sometime in the 11th century).
So that would mean that Malcolm couldn't be bad at all because in real life he was pretty decent (apart from trying to invade England quite a bit).

 

[FredGarvin]

I'd have to give Much Ado About Nothing the nod on this one. A close second would be Othello even though I am more a fan of the comedies.

 

[arildno]

haha nah he wasn't
And anyway I thought Shakespeare based MacBeth on the real life king Duncan(sometime in the 11th century).
So that would mean that Malcolm couldn't be bad at all because in real life he was pretty decent (apart from trying to invade England quite a bit).

1. Well, it's a few years since I read MacBeth, so I can't bring along hard "evidence" here...
You might be right, though I'll keep my own view on this till I've read it up again.

2. And anyway I thought Shakespeare based MacBeth on the real life king Duncan(sometime in the 11th century).

As for the historical background:

From the English perspective, sure Malcolm was a "hero" (although I'm not too sure if Shakespeare held to that view).
This is because Malcolm was a traitor who brought in the English in a Scottish feud.
As for Macbeth&Duncan:
Duncan had proven himself inept at governance, and were unable to prevent the Northumbrian Earl's conquests, in addition to the raids from Earl Thorfinn from the Orkneys.
Through his wife Gruach, MacBeth had a claim on the throne; you might as well regard the removal of Duncan (in 1040) as a necessary evil in order to keep the state intact, rather than it should crumble to pieces under Duncan's inefficient rule.
Note that MacBeth went to Rome in 1050 for absolution by the Pope; he could hardly have undertaken such a journey unless he had secured his country's borders (i.e, MacBeth was the one who actually managed to stave off the crisis which had built up under Duncan).

Malcolm attacked with English troops in 1054, and killed MacBeth in 1057.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't care about the basic plot; The actual writing is most important to me. In that regard, Hamlet is the best I have read, but I haven't read half of them. Julius Caesar would be my second favorite. I think Henry V and Troilus and Cressida have some exceptional parts, mostly involving the title characters. Hmm, we need a favorite lines and speeches thread.

 

[arildno]

I don't care about the basic plot; The actual writing is most important to me. In that regard, Hamlet is the best I have read, but I haven't read half of them.

That is why I favour MacBeth; it is Shakespeare's most focused (and shortest..) play; there's a lot of irrelevant stuff in Hamlet.

 

[honestrosewater]

That is why I favour MacBeth; it is Shakespeare's most focused (and shortest..) play; there's a lot of irrelevant stuff in Hamlet.

Ah, that just kills me. What parts do you think are irrelevant?

 

[arildno]

The invasion by Fortinbras, for example.

(Besides, it is just about the most un-Norwegian name I know of..)

 

[honestrosewater]

The invasion by Fortinbras, for example.

(Besides, it is just about the most un-Norwegian name I know of..)

Okay, that doesn't bother me so much. I thought you meant parts of the writing were irrelevant.
Anyway, I don't think Fortinbras is irrelevant. He is restoring his father's, or perhaps his country's, honor, even though his father was fairly beaten. At any rate, Fortinbras is doing what Hamlet cannot, so Fortinbras' actions challenge and spur Hamlet on. Just look at Hamlet's reaction to the news of the invasion:

Ham. I’ll be with you straight. Go a little before. [Exeunt all except HAMLET. 36
How all occasions do inform against me,
And spur my dull revenge! What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more. 40
Sure he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unus’d. Now, whe’r it be 44
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on the event,
A thought, which, quarter’d, hath but one part wisdom,
And ever three parts coward, I do not know 48
Why yet I live to say ‘This thing’s to do;’
Sith I have cause and will and strength and means
To do ’t. Examples gross as Earth exhort me:
Witness this army of such mass and charge 52
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff’d
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure 56
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw 60
When honour’s at the stake. How stand I then,
That have a father kill’d, a mother stain’d,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep, while, to my shame, I see 64
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause, 68
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain? O! from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth! [Exit.

The invasion also adds pressure by giving Hamlet a deadline.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'd have to give Much Ado About Nothing the nod on this one.

Your favorite? Much Ado? Challenge! You must defend that choice!

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't care about the basic plot; The actual writing is most important to me.

I agree, but only because Shakespeare always has good, theatrical plots. Given that, we're free to pick and chose which we think is studded with the best written scenes nd speeches.

In that regard, Hamlet is the best I have read

It is hard to argue against Hamlet.

Julius Caesar would be my second favorite.

There are a lot of great speeches in it, yes. The two films of it I've seen suffered from treating Caesar as a British Monarch in a toga. A production I would like to see, and that might properly enegize the plot, would be one that bore in mind the word: Mafiosi.

 

[honestrosewater]

I agree, but only because Shakespeare always has good, theatrical plots. Given that, we're free to pick and chose which we think is studded with the best written scenes nd speeches.

Plot schmot. Character, character, character. Woops, just slipped out. Character, character, character! Geez, maybe I should get this checked. Character! I think I've been brainwashed.

It is hard to argue against Hamlet.

I read some Shakespeare when I was younger, about 9-12. I was mostly only interested in poetry at the time, and the plays were more than I could tackle on my own. When I was 17, I saw Branagh's Hamlet and was blown away. I became very interested in Shakespeare again and started reading other plays. But no other play I've read or seen has measured up to Hamlet. I can't stand watching other adaptations- the cuts hurt too much. It may just be that I have Hamlet just about memorized (I would play the movie in the background as I was writing- I must have seen it at least four hundred times), but every single scene is unforgettable. I don't think I would change a word. It has my favorite character, Horatio, and my (current) favorite line, "Hold off the Earth awhile, 'till I have caught her once more in mine arms." Gosh, I love that line more every time I hear it. It's so charged and pathetic and devastating and tells you everything he's thinking.

There are a lot of great speeches in it, yes. The two films of it I've seen suffered from treating Caesar as a British Monarch in a toga. A production I would like to see, and that might properly enegize the plot, would be one that bore in mind the word: Mafiosi.

And JC shows that the mob is fickle.

 

[zoobyshoe]

When I was 17, I saw Branagh's Hamlet and was blown away.

I hate to say this, but I haven't seen this one, (and don't really want to based on his other movies.)

I've seen the Olivier, and the Mel Gibson, both of which I liked, but I mostly know Hamlet just from reading it. It is loaded with some exeptionally well expressed insights into human nature, mostly in Hamlet's speeches.

I know what you mean about character, but if all the plots were badly developed somehow, or rang essentially false, then the plays would suffer. In general, his plots are good and pretty interesting.

 

[Evo]

Mine is A Midsummer Night's Dream. for plot.

Hamlet's the best for quotable speeches.

Richard III is the best for suspense and villainy.

I agree with those. Although the evo child liked Othello.

 

[Gokul43201]

Twelfth Night, for the unstoppable flow of sexual innuendo.

I too liked Julius Caesar. Speak, hands, for me.

 

[honestrosewater]

I hate to say this, but I haven't seen this one, (and don't really want to based on his other movies.)

I've seen the Olivier, and the Mel Gibson, both of which I liked, but I mostly know Hamlet just from reading it. It is loaded with some exeptionally well expressed insights into human nature, mostly in Hamlet's speeches.

I've been avoiding Mel Gibson's. I've seen Olivier's, an older one on TV with no one I recognized, and a new one with Ethan Hawke. I didn't like any of them, though I liked Olivier's the best. I thought they were all dead, just gloomy, flat, and dead. And Olivier's cuts!
For me, Branagh flips from being annoying to being refreshing. But the rest of the cast is excellent. I can't imagine a better Claudius, Polonius, Laertes, or Horatio. BTW, not a line was cut- it's 4 hours of entertainment, if you didn't already know (it is a smidge out of sequence in a couple of places). I think it's the best movie ever, but I don't know what to say to convince you to see it. Why didn't you like his other movies? Which ones?

I know what you mean about character, but if all the plots were badly developed somehow, or rang essentially false, then the plays would suffer. In general, his plots are good and pretty interesting.

Right, of course. I was just joking. I've gotten the impression from some books that the author's students focus way too much on plot and not enough on character. So they overcompensate by advising writers to ignore the plot and just focus on character, character, character. I prefer the advice that every line should either advance the plot or expose the character- and ideally do both.

 

[honestrosewater]

Twelfth Night, for the unstoppable flow of sexual innuendo.

You know what they say- love flies out the door when money comes innuendo.
Woops, that's Groucho. I haven't read Twelfth Night. But now that I know...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why didn't you like his other movies? Which ones?

Dead Again and Henry V. It's very hard for me to pinpoint the quality I don't like. It's an attitude I sense in his acting, a kind of reserve that seems to say, "I'm a professional, I am doing this in my sleep."

So they overcompensate by advising writers to ignore the plot and just focus on character, character, character. I prefer the advice that every line should either advance the plot or expose the character- and ideally do both.

One of my acting teachers in college warned us to make sure not to mistake Shakespeare for "Literature". Shakespeare, he accurately pointed out, was not written to be read like a book, but as a performance score to be fleshed out by actors in live productions. You begin to miss many nuances when you mentally remove it from the original performance setting, The Globe. That is especially true of Hamlet with the play within a play device. Hamlet tells his actors that the purpose of "playing:"

"was, and is, to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."

That's Shakespeare talking to his audience of Nobles and Royalty saying "History is the mask I use to tell you about yourselves." What follows, the scene of Royals watching a play about Royals, can't ever have been so electric as when it was performed at the Globe in front of actual Royals and Nobles. Shakespeare must have been having a field day saying to them, "I have seen you all flinch when my ancient scenes touched a modern nerve."

And so, while it's possible to read them as literature, or look at them a poetry, those aren't the primarily accurate ways of appreciating his plays. At the time, the plots mattered. Today, much less so.

A novel or story, meant only to be read and not performed, will have its own best dynamics.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Shakespeare In Love was the best. That's why it won the Oscar.

 

[honestrosewater]

Dead Again and Henry V. It's very hard for me to pinpoint the quality I don't like. It's an attitude I sense in his acting, a kind of reserve that seems to say, "I'm a professional, I am doing this in my sleep."

Yeah, he does seem to think he's quite fabulous sometimes. As Hamlet, he's sometimes too angry and fiesty for my taste, but he's not bad and certainly doesn't ruin things. Eh, I'm not very good at critiques. It's very lively- unlike every other one I've seen. Again, there are several first-rate performances. The cinematography, music, costumes, setting, etc. are all beautiful. He updated it to I think the 19th century, so it's not a dank castle. He doesn't miss any of the humor; Polonius is really funny- something else others seem to miss out on. With a few exceptions (in very minor roles), you can tell that everyone knew what they were doing. My biggest worry when watching a new Shakespeare movie is that the actors or director wil have thought, "Oh, doing Shakespeare would be good for my career," but will have no idea what the hell they're doing. That's not a problem here. Meh, I don't know what else to say. I think it's the best movie ever, but I don't know what matters most to you. If Branagh is all that worries you, I don't think he'll be a problem. Some of the people from Henry V are also in Hamlet. Let me think- the Chorus, Derek Jacobi, is Claudius; Exeter, Brian Blessed, King Hamlet; The Dauphin, Michael Maloney, Laertes; that's it off the top of my head. Ah, I really want you to see this movie, and I don't think I'm doing a very good job.

One of my acting teachers in college warned us to make sure not to mistake Shakespeare for "Literature". Shakespeare, he accurately pointed out, was not written to be read like a book, but as a performance score to be fleshed out by actors in live productions. You begin to miss many nuances when you mentally remove it from the original performance setting, The Globe. That is especially true of Hamlet with the play within a play device. Hamlet tells his actors that the purpose of "playing:"

"was, and is, to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."

That's Shakespeare talking to his audience of Nobles and Royalty saying "History is the mask I use to tell you about yourselves." What follows, the scene of Royals watching a play about Royals, can't ever have been so electric as when it was performed at the Globe in front of actual Royals and Nobles. Shakespeare must have been having a field day saying to them, "I have seen you all flinch when my ancient scenes touched a modern nerve."

And so, while it's possible to read them as literature, or look at them a poetry, those aren't the primarily accurate ways of appreciating his plays. At the time, the plots mattered. Today, much less so.

A novel or story, meant only to be read and not performed, will have its own best dynamics.

There was a great intro to a First Folio I had (the cheaper one). It pointed out things like how (oh, what's it called?) ending a word with the same sound that begins the next word adds emphasis by making the actor stop to enunciate properly. And having false cues to make actors start their lines before they were supposed to- so seeming to interrupt the other. And so on. This would also likely be missed by just reading. But I think there are benefits to both watching and reading; The benefits of reading just take more time to develop. Anyway, I need to stop myself or I'll go on all day.

 

[Smurf]

Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war!