Thursday, November 26, 2020
Helen Mirren Believes that Shakespeare Should Not Be Taught in Schools
www.broadwayworld.com: Helen Mirren has revealed that she does not believe Shakespeare should be taught in schools, The Independent reports.
She recently chatted with Royal Shakespeare Company's artistic director Gregory Doran over Zoom, stating, "I don't think Shakespeare should be taught in schools. All young people's experience of Shakespeare should be live theatre."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is an interesting argument. My Shakespeare elective course has been having a some what related discussion abut whether Shakespeare shows with incredibly problematic themes – like the anti-Semitism in the Merchant of Venice and the misogyny in Taming of the Shrew – should be produced at all. My stance on that question, which I think sort leads to how I feel about the argument Helen Mirren poses, is that problematic Shakespeare should not be produced generally, with the expectation being if the company is able to support having discussions with the audience about the problematic aspects of the piece. This is something that a classroom setting is very conducive to facilitating that discussion, whereas in theatre, it's hard to make sure your entire audience receives the same message. However, I do agree with Mirren that watching Shakespeare can make the language feel much less intimidating. I think there is an appropriate middle ground where the curriculum that teaches Shakespeare emphasizes watching recordings and works to take down the idolized image of Shakespeare. I think it would be neat to teach a course that functioned as a Shakespeare swap list – teaching a Shakespeare play, and then teaching a play written by a playwright from an underrepresented community that hits the same themes.
I do not totally agree here. I, like many high school students, had to sit through almost 4 years of having Shakespeare taught in my English classes. Sometimes it would drone on, but I am fortunate that all of the teachers that I had found ways to make it fun and interesting and to get more involved in the work than merely reading it out loud in class and waiting for someone to mispronounce a word. I think that part of the problem is the way that Shakespeare is taught. For those schools who can, try to find a local organization who is putting on a play and take the students to go see it. Plan your curriculum around a theatre schedule if you can. Have the students read the play but they also see a recording of it as they read along. There are a lot of ways to bring this playwrights works to life in the classroom and it requires much more work than just giving a student the text and telling them to read.
When I first saw the title of the article I was quite surprised. I am a fan of Helen Mirren and I was quite surprised that she would make such remark. Then I read the subtitle that she thinks that young people should experience shakespeare in live theatre performance. I understand where she is coming from with this argument but I think that the live theatre is not exactly the solution. I actually became quite frustrated in my highschool experience with the reading of plays. The first shakespeare I read was in 8th grade GT english, from there on we read only one play a year, the play always being shakespeare. I found it odd that we were only exposed to one play a year and the fact that the only author we read was shakespeare. Usually we would read the play and watch clips from the movie version as well. I’m not sure how much shakespeare they teach in england, But I agree that seeing shakespeare always helps with the understanding of the text.
I somewhat agree with this take, as viewing the live counterpart to a Shakespeare work prior to reading it has always substantially helped me understand the content. However, I think if it is taught at all, reading and closely analyzing the work is also equally important, as a lot of the language, especially to a younger crowd, can be lost or glossed over on stage. I agree that Shakespeare should not necessarily be straight taught to people as young as 11 or 12 without expressed interest. I read my first Shakespeare piece in school, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, when I was 12 or 13, and I did not appreciate it at the time. Later in life however, I enjoyed reading Shakespeare’s work and analyzing it in class, only after being continually exposed to it. I agree with the opinion that being exposed only to the literature at an early age could leave a sour taste, so when tasked with teaching these works, teachers should rethink the way they present them so as to not damage the opinion of young people that have the potential to appreciate the work when they are older.
Upon first glance, I lost my breath for a moment, but, after reading just a short ways into the article, I came to agree with her stance. If you look back to when Shakespeare was writing all of his work, it was meant to be seen, not read. If we want to inspire students to really understand and engage with Shakespeare, we should teach it first by letting them watch it. I think it is equally important that the viewing is followed by reading. The reading can reinforce the understanding, and it can open the door for discussing some of the problematic themes within those texts. A lot of the initial intrigue and enjoyment comes from picking out the laughable moments and seeing the physical comedy. I think it is also important that students not have to come head to head with the text until the teacher is sure that it is within grasp. It will always be challenging because it is so different, but it is almost impossible to come to love something that you only have experience being frustrated with.
Post a Comment