• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

What's the big deal about Shakespeare?

H

harmonica44

Not so much a screenwriting question as storywriting in general. I took a class to help my screenwriting, and a lot of these classes will learn from Shakespeare. However, I find his plays are filled with a lot of metaphores and analogies to make points. Not just a few, but a lot, just to described one thing often. I can see maybe needing to use one analogy to make a point, but why almost a dozen in a row, sometimes? Just make your point and move on to another part of the plot.

I have written two features so far, with as many twists and turns as I could fit, and I'd say it they about five times more plot than any Shakespeare play I have read or seen performed. The reason why is because I kept the analogies and metaphores down to a bare minimum. Now I am not saying I am a good writer, or better than Shakespeare at all for that matter. Just don't get why have analogies, when you can have plot?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
I believe you're missing the point. Clever twists and complicated plots do not a good story make. A good story puts on display the human experience. That's what Shakespeare was a master of.

"This above all: to thine own self be true" (Not only true for life but is great writing advice as well!)

"All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts."

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother."

This has always been a favorite of mine, and unfortunately it never stops being relevant:
"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die
well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their
argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it
will be a black matter for the king that led them to
it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of
subjection. "

It's good to look to Shakespeare for story but bear in mind you can't necessarily let in influence your screenwriting too literally, because Shakespeare is obviously very talky, which is appropriate for theatre but not great for film, where we prefer to show and not tell.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
it's not really plot that makes Shakespeare great, most of his stories were stolen from other sources anyway and use pretty basic plots. Like Dreadylocks said it's about human experience/behavior but also, what i think of as Shakespeare's greatest strength, his command of language.

Maybe he used a million metaphors in one soliloquy but they all build on the one before it, double meanings and connotation often give two meanings to exchanges and speeches...and it's always character-revealing--all Shakespeare's plays can be understood without stage or scene direction or flat-out description of character, everything's in the dialogue.

Shakespeare's a lesson in how to use dialogue to your best advantage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are scholars who argue that Shakespeare is overrated, given there were other playwrights and writers of equal and surpassing talent at the time. What Shakespeare did was take ancient dramatic pieces and modernized them for his period. Most of his works have roots in Greek and Roman dramas and medieval morality plays. It is certainly no different than screenwriters who have tried to create updates of older or even contemporary works. There are many writers who create grindhouse scripts to emulate the B-movies of the 40s, 50s and 60s. Was value added in re-interpreting Dr. Seuss' works? While some may disagree, Spielberg is the modern Shakespeare. His scripts are often formulaic and loaded with moral lessons which the masses continue to watch with their children. Just as many went to the globe theater to see Shakespeare's take of history and older tales. A close examination of Spielberg's movies reveal a rich tapestry of metaphor and analogy interwoven visually throughout.

Metaphor and analogy were contemporary to Shakespeare's day, just as the Hero's Journey is ubiquitous in modern film. Life, death, friendship, conflict, jealousy, lust, unrequited love, confusion, bravery, etc. exist now as in his time. Metaphor and analogy transcend plot and allow the audience to take away more than just action sequences. Action movies may entertain us momentarily, but they seldom inspire us to look at our actions once we leave the cinema. Bam, he blows up a helicopter with a bazooka. Lots of action. Pain, blood, death, torture, sex, .... So what? Yet add metaphor and you get "Saving Private Ryan", "Schindler's List", and a host of other tales where the grey area of good and bad is not always clean. As a viewer, you leave wondering, "What would I have done?" Certainly other directors and writers have done the same. Yet Spielberg is as much a household name as was Shakespeare. And before Spielberg, there was Disney who repackaged fairytales and histories so as to have broad appeal and pass along moral messages. Or Charlie Chaplin whose wit also had a poignant social commentary.

While it's fun to write straight out action, it takes a rare gift to transcend the plot. The power of the Star Wars trilogy is not in the plot but in how it inspires people by metaphor to examine aspects of their lives. Will studying Shakespeare necessarily make you a better screenwriter? No. Why have analogy & metaphor when you have plot? It adds something extra that makes the movie worth viewing again and sharing. Shakespeare seldom has purely bad or good characters. And while stacking symbols is unnecessary, a good film often has some running symbol throughout for a purpose that ties together the theme and meaning.

There is always a place for films for pure entertainment. Then there are some films which transcend plot and touch us and teach us about ourselves and the human condition.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shakespeare wrote PLAYS. You are writing for the SCREEN. These are two very different, though parallel mediums.

Shakespeare wrote almost 500 years ago. Times were just a little different back then, and audiences had different expectations.

Was Shakespeare a great playwright? That's a huge debate. But he sure as hell was/is a POPULAR playwright, so he obviously did everything according to the "success" rules (clichés?) of the time.

harmonica44 said:
I have written two features so far, with as many twists and turns as I could fit, and I'd say it they about five times more plot than any Shakespeare play I have read or seen performed. The reason why is because I kept the analogies and metaphores down to a bare minimum. Now I am not saying I am a good writer, or better than Shakespeare at all for that matter. Just don't get why have analogies, when you can have plot?
Click to expand...

"Less is more."

It only takes one or two really good twists; too many and the audience is spinning around so much they don't care after a while.

Great storytelling is about people. If you have a strong (meaning well-written) character perhaps a good twist in the second act and another in the third is enough. The best twists are the ones that were given to you at the outset, but you never quite see them for what they are ("I see dead people").

Perhaps you focus on plot rather than character because you don't understand people.

"Less is more."

My wife is a graphic designer. She also likes to sew when she has the time. The hardest thing to make is a "simple" black dress, because every little flaw is easily seen, not buried under a bunch of bows and lace.

So maybe you need to keep twisting the plot because you can't build characters and build tension; you cover up the flaws in the development of your plot and the development of your characters under a lot of bows and lace.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What turned me around on Shakespeare and made me start loving his work, was seeing Julius Caesar performed when I was in high school. And not just performed, but performed well.

I admit, when I had first started reading the plays for English classes, it was like reading the dictionary. It was long and tedious and hard to get through. But having someone that KNOWS the meaning behind the words, and being able to project the thoughts, feeling, and emotions to the audience in a way that makes the audience feel what the character is feeling makes all the difference.

I literally cried watching a member of the Utah Shakespearean Company give Mark Antony's funeral oration. There was SO much emotion given in that performance. It was light years better than any version I'd seen done before or since.

Shakespeare was an incredibly gifted writer, IMO. You could learn much from learning how his works should be performed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FantasySciFi said:
There are scholars who argue that Shakespeare is overrated, given there were other playwrights and writers of equal and surpassing talent at the time.
Click to expand...

This is not really true. If you look at Shakespeare's contemporaries the really important players (with a significant literary legacy) are Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. Marlowe has one great play (Dr Faustus) and a few good plays, but nothing like Shakespeare's body of work. If you compare The Jew of Malta to The Merchant of Venice then the difference in quality is plain to see. Jonson is much closer to the later restoration playwrights, so his plays are less serious and a lot bawdier. I'd argue that there are two great plays (Volpone and The Alchemist) but neither reaches anything like the heights of Hamlet, Macbeth, Lear, Othello...etc.

Certainly, you'll be able to find 'scholarship' that argues for the superiority of other 16th century dramatists, but I'm putting 'scholarship' in inverted commas for a reason ;)

Alcove Audio said:
Was Shakespeare a great playwright? That's a huge debate. But he sure as hell was/is a POPULAR playwright, so he obviously did everything according to the "success" rules (clichés?) of the time.
Click to expand...

Likewise, this is not actually really true. There is very little serious scholarship that doesn't consider Shakespeare to be a great playwright (and why would there be?). Obviously, some plays are missteps and not up to the quality of his greatest works but there can be no disputing, by those who've read his work, that he is a masterful playwright.

Which brings me to harmonica44 original, distressing point. If you are looking for episodes of Law & Order or CSI then you're not going to find it. But calling Shakespeare out on grounds of 'insufficient plot' is just ignorant. Is there insufficient plot in Hamlet? Really?!? It suggests to me that you've not read or watched closely enough.

As for the use of analogy, it's important to make two broad considerations. The first is that Shakespeare's plays are written predominantly in verse (the prose sections tend to indicate that a character is 'unsophisticated'). As such, it is, essentially, poetry, and ought to be read in the same light as his sonnets. Even making linguistic comparisons between Shakespeare and playwrights like Becket, Pinter or Osborne, is foolish as it misunderstands the way that language is being used. Consider that most of his plays are written mainly in iambic pentameter and you'll see that this is grand, masterful poetry, not simply a case of actions being represented by words. Secondly, the context of the period meant that analogy was completely ubiquitous. There are very few Renaissance texts that don't deal- to some extent- with an analogy. Utopia is entirely an analogy for society, The Faerie Queene is entirely an analogy for religion, The Flea is entirely an analogy for sex...etc. It comes from a climate of conservatism and becomes a game for writers, and Shakespeare is as adept at it as anyone. The use of analogy is a key Renaissance conceit and is not just there to make it wordier.

You don't have to like Shakespeare, but feeling the need to explain that you're 'not saying I'm a better writer than Shakespeare' makes me want to beat my head against my desk.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NickClapper said:
You don't have to like Shakespeare, but feeling the need to explain that you're 'not saying I'm a better writer than Shakespeare' makes me want to beat my head against my desk.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Great post. I think I learned more about Shakespeare from that single post than from anything I've heard before. 'Course, I don't know much, so...

Zensteve said:
Shakespeare and his editor didn't see eye to eye that often, according to this documentary: linkage

Too many words. :bag:

.
Click to expand...

:lol:

That's great.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Although, you can watch his work "Hamlet" reinterpreted for a modern audience in the Lion King... beat for beat, they simply made the characters animals and made the language non-elizabethan (modern). Plenty of plot there. Watch the Mel Gibson version... they took out the political intrigue, but it plays well -- and is spoken brilliantly therein.

and double entendre is really challenging and fun... word play makes me giddy at times.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IMHO H44, you seem to be missing the whole point of Shakespeare, stories in general and of the medium of film. From your OP, you seem to be equating the quality of the story ONLY with the complexity of it's plot, which IMHO is a serious mistake. What makes a story (or a film or play) good or great is NOT about the story itself but purely in how the story is told. You seem to be saying that all Shakespeare's analogies and metaphors are getting in the way of the story, whereas in actual fact, it's the complete opposite way around. It's specifically because of the way Shakespeare invents, picks, phrases and uses analogy and metaphor which makes his stories so great.

Rather than dismissing all Shakespeare's analogies and metaphors, think about them analytically as a story telling tool for a moment; when you are reading Shakespeare what effect on you personally do all they have? Instead of reading just a simple easily understood description of what a character is doing/feeling, you have to work out and interpret Shakespeare's analogies and metaphors to understand what he is trying to tell you. This requires you to employ your own imagination and life experience to create an interpretation. It is this personal involvement in the story and the vivid pictures and depth of understanding which Shakespeare's analogies and metaphors creates in your own imagination which makes Shakespeare one of the greatest story tellers of all time.

Just reading a Shakespeare play is hard work, for two reasons: 1. The 500 year old language (early modern English) is not as easy to interpret as it would have been in it's day and 2. You are missing an important aid to your creation of an interpretation, the visual and aural elements of the performance; the gestures and facial expressions of the actors and the tone, inflection, emphasis, phrasing and all the other aspects of the delivery of the dialogue by the actors, all of which provide more input data to help (or rather manipulate) your brain to create your personal interpretation within the bounds of what Shakespeare desired/intended.

In short, while some could consider Shakespeare's analogies and metaphors a hindrance to the basic plot or even that the stories themselves are not that great or just rip-offs of earlier stories, this is missing the point of Shakespeare and indeed of stories themselves. A story is nothing, no more than random words on a page and not even a story, UNTIL it is told to and interpreted by an audience! As a creator of stories, Shakespeare is no better than countless other good story creators, it's Shakespeare's ability as a story teller which makes him a globally appreciated immortal genius. It's this difference between creating a story and telling a story which seems to let so many indie filmmakers down. While the story itself is not completely irrelevant, it's importance is extremely minor compared to how the story is told. This IMHO is what separates the great films and great film makers from the masses.

Of course, this is all just my personal opinion of Shakespeare, film making and story telling in general, so it's entirely open to dispute!

G
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, you've opened a whole can of worms here (and a lot of righteous artistic indignation with it), but just to branch off of what Alcove said:

Cinema is a VISUAL medium. Theater is a PERFORMANCE medium. Because theater is very limited as to what information it can give visually (because its actions and locations are limited to what can be produced in front of a live audience in real time) theater must give nearly all of its story through the performances of the actors. For the most part, this means it has to give most of its story information through dialogue. This was even more so in Shakespeare's case, as his plays were given on a bare stage, with the only visual cues being costuming and hand props. So, actors had to use their words to give the audience information on the location, the weather, and events that could not possibly be portrayed on the stage so the audience could imagine the visuals in their heads, much in the same way the narration does in a novel. So, excessive dialogue is a necessity in most plays.

But, in what seems to be the general popular opinion, the greatness of Shakespeare is not the plot, but the beauty of the language. Shakespeare was a poet first and a dramatist second. True, Shakespeare usually does not translate well to cinema if done directly. But this does not indicate a flaw in Shakespeare's work. It only makes obvious the contrary needs of a good play versus the needs of a good piece of cinema.

But, like Shakespeare, many of the greatest filmmakers fill their works with metaphors and analogies. However, these are given through VISUALS and ACTION. Because cinema is a visual medium.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ya know, I honestly didn't expect to read this thread and see it be so one-sided.

I don't think he sucks, but personally, I prefer reading his work, than seeing it performed. Harder to absorb the subtext when the actors are delivering their lines (more often than not, very poorly)

I like the metaphors he uses, I like the constant references to other pieces of classic literature.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mussonman said:
I don't think he sucks, but personally, I prefer reading his work, than seeing it performed. Harder to absorb the subtext when the actors are delivering their lines (more often than not, very poorly).
Click to expand...

Then you really need to see Shakespeare performed well. Maybe Ohio is the backwoods compared to the NY Metro area, but for those of us on a budget we can always catch Shakespeare In The Park. All it requires is a blanket or lawn chairs, liquids and munchies, and you make an evening of it in Central Park in Manhattan. Of course, you have to get there reasonably early to be able to actually see anything, but the sound is always excellent, and, in recent years, there are big screens for those at a distance.

We even get a mini version here in Fairfield County, CT. Not quite the same quality, but still pretty good and much more intimate, and the intimacy puts a different spin on the interpretation and performance.

Of course, maybe you just disagree with the "subtext" from which the actors deliver the lines. You have your interpretation, they have theirs; and theirs doesn't jell with yours. That was sort of the point of my Henry V post; there are four completely distinct ways of approaching in that video, each one completely different in delivery, providing different meaning to the words. The one from "Renaissance Man" was sort of for laughs, but still touching none-the-less.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top