Comprehensive Shakespeare Experience
December 7, 2004 6:22 AM   Subscribe

I would like to see all 37 of Shakespears plays (unabridged), what is the easiest, cheapest, way to do this?
posted by phrontist to Media & Arts (21 answers total)
 
The BBC shot a series of videos that -I think- covers all the plays. Many mid to big libraries carry a few, and depending on your local area you may be able to get them all through interlibrary loan. The ones I remember watching were fairly dry, but they should give you a sense of how the action plays out in an average production.

If you were talking about seeing all the plays live, that's going to require a bit of traveling on your part, as productions of Pericles, Prince of Tyre are few and far between...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:31 AM on December 7, 2004


Response by poster: I of course want to do this just for the fun of it, but my ulterior motive is to become better at Scholastic Bowl. I was hoping a serious acting company would have released all of their renditions as a boxed set, but I can find no such panacea.
posted by phrontist at 6:34 AM on December 7, 2004


That's a tall order. I'll second PST's pair and raise Titius Andronicus as a play that might be hard to find a production of, nowadays.
posted by normy at 6:38 AM on December 7, 2004


Here's a link to the full set on DVD, which will set you back $3000! The VHS set retails for $500 less... It's still cheaper than moving to Stratford-upon-Avon & waiting for the RSC to stage 'em all, but you'd probably prefer to get hold of them through a library, as PinkStainlessTail suggested.
posted by misteraitch at 6:40 AM on December 7, 2004


There have also been many audio productions of Shaxper's plays over the years, if that works (it would help with identifying quotes, etc.). Again, check with your library.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:41 AM on December 7, 2004


If you go to see a play that you expect to be unabridged, you might want to make sure it isn't edited - it is quite common that bits are cut out.

For example, I saw two productions of Romeo and Juliet recently. One of them didn't have the prologue ("In fair Verona...") though everything else seemed to be there, while another (which was an NYU student production) had cut out Romeo and Juliet's parents, Paris, and various minor characters.

Both of them were good but not unabridged.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 6:50 AM on December 7, 2004


You could get a copy of the DVD of The Reduced Theater Company's Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged)!

Sure, they do all the comedies *at the same time* but you'll get the gist.
posted by bcwinters at 6:51 AM on December 7, 2004


Why not just get a nice copy of the Riverside or Arden Shakespeare, and read them?

There are plenty of complete texts available on the web, but I personally prefer something with real pages and a bit of annotation.

It's hard to find a performance that doesn't meddle with the text, too. I don't think I've ever seen an uncut version of "Hamlet."
posted by ikkyu2 at 6:54 AM on December 7, 2004


I'll second PST's pair and raise Titius Andronicus as a play that might be hard to find a production of, nowadays.

And don't forget The Two Noble Kinsmen!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:54 AM on December 7, 2004


I don't think I've ever seen an uncut version of "Hamlet."

Branagh's. "Uncut" was the big selling point for that one actually, as Ken's not exactly the best Hamlet evar.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:57 AM on December 7, 2004


Second the recommendations for the BBC versions, though I'm pretty sure the Beeb used the standard cuts.

I'd go for a combination of getting the BBC tapes/discs from the library and reading the original, uncut plays in a compilation.
posted by Vidiot at 7:03 AM on December 7, 2004


Having done a double-handful of Shakespeare, I have to tell you that an unabridged performance is incredibly rare. Uncut, your average Shakespearean work is going to fill three hours, often to overflowing. Modern audiences won't sit for so long. (Note: This is not a snark on culture, but rather on the way entertainment has changed and our options have broadened stupendously.)

But honestly, this rarely takes away from the intent of the play itself. Shakespeare was a working playwright and certainly had to cut his own shows to suit a particular audience or amount of time. As such, the plays are remarkably resilient. So you can still have a fulfilling production of Hamlet, even if you leave Reynaldo and Osric sitting on the bench.

Now ... if you're going for Scholastic Bowl (Oh, the memories ... ) acumen, you're just going to have to do some hard-core reading. Alternately, the BBC has some great unabridged audio recordings performed by Branagh, Gielgud and other regulars from the RSC.
posted by grabbingsand at 7:38 AM on December 7, 2004


Response by poster: grabbingsand: It seems to me that watching them would aid in fast recall though... and they weren't meant to be read! Bah, I guess I'm just lazy.
posted by phrontist at 8:16 AM on December 7, 2004


There is a kind of "lock" that comes with the study of most subjects. You reach a point through reading or hearing or watching when you stop learning by rote and start understanding as a whole. Regarding Shakespeare, this only came when I spent a semester in Dr Michael Cooley's Shakespeare class at my alma mater.

Honestly, you need to decide why you need to learn the works of Wm Shakespeare. Either you want to know them to answer questions, or you want to understand them as a force of human expression. Your call. :)
posted by grabbingsand at 8:30 AM on December 7, 2004


I second grabbingsand's idea of a lock. A few years ago, I made a new year's resolution to read all Shakespeare's plays in a year. I actually made it through 34 of them that year without too much trouble. I really started to get into the flow and grasp of it again after about 5 or 6 plays (really recalling my undergraduate and graduate study of the plays I'd wager). One caveat, a few of the histories (Henry VI, all three parts) and early comedies were rather rough going. I'd intersperse any reading/viewing of these with better known, later, and to be quite honest, better works.
posted by trox at 8:45 AM on December 7, 2004


The BBC version is the Royal Shakespeare Company. It doesn't get any better than that.

But if you want to see all of these free - go to a university library. I can't imagine that university library with a video room would be without these or something similar.
posted by xammerboy at 8:49 AM on December 7, 2004


Cheaper price for complete set, still a cool thousand bucks though. I wonder if my library rents them.
posted by inthe80s at 8:53 AM on December 7, 2004


When I retire as an eccentric millionaire (I can wish!), I think travelling the world in an attempt to see a live production of every Shakespeare play would be a truly excellent way to spend one's final years. There's a subject for a play...
posted by normy at 9:35 AM on December 7, 2004


And don't forget The Two Noble Kinsmen!

I saw that last year at the Public. It got pretty mediocre reviews, but I really liked it.
posted by bshort at 12:40 PM on December 7, 2004


I think that seeing them helps, in other words, is not simply laziness or unuseful or anything. There is something that comes from seeing the lines interpreted. Even if you do not agree with the interpretation it gives you something else to think about. When you read the plays there is only you to do the interpretting.

In that line, I cannot recommend Harold Bloom's book The Invention of the Human enough. It's an amazing feat of explaining why Shakespeare matters to our culture. Bloom is a bit of a boob, but he's a good reader a lot of the time.
posted by OmieWise at 12:43 PM on December 7, 2004


My theatre company does uncut Shakespeare (and other classics). (We're not doing anything for the next couple of months, so I won't self-link). I can't TELL you how much flak I get about it. People refuse to come, they tell my I CAN'T do the plays that way -- even the actors are skeptical about it. But the people who do come tend to love the shows. frequently they say things like, "that was three hours? Wow! It really flew by." This is a great compliment, because we also perform without sets or period costumes: just actors on stage, speaking the lines. These plays are awesome, and if they're done well, they're never boring. But it's hard convincing people of that.

But honestly, this rarely takes away from the intent of the play itself.

That's great, if you only care about the "intent." I'm not exactly sure what the "intent"is. Shakespeare's intent? We don't really know what that was. If you mean the gist of the play -- the major events and the famous speeches -- then I'd agree with you. But if you care about the nuances, you lose them when you cut.

Incidentally, I'm not opposed to cutting on principal. If cutting will make the story clearer or better, then go for it. But if the point of cutting is to just make the play shorter so the audience can get home earlier... ugh!

In answer to your question, I'd try all-of-the-above (depending on how much time you have). Since there aren't many uncut performances, I'd see (and hear) as many performances as you can (see several of the same play). Different directors will make different cuts.
posted by grumblebee at 1:47 PM on December 7, 2004


« Older How can I overcome my aversion to using telephones...   |   How do I get permanent Now Playing info on iTunes... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.