Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Another quick thought (I really do need to put my clothes and things away, and go through the mail, and wash my hair).

New year's resolutions.

In the past, I resisted doing these - falling back on the tired old joke that "Several years ago I resolved never to make another New Year's Resolution and I haven't broken it yet!"

Because, frankly, most New Year's resolutions kind of bug me. As (what I refer to as) a "recovering perfectionist," those kind of things can send me back into old thought-patterns - the idea that nothing I ever do really is good enough, that everything needs endless work and refining, that it's impossible to ever look at yourself and go, "You know, you're actually doing pretty well." And it's so easy for me (especially now, given that this year is one of those Landmark Birthdays) to look at other people born in the same year (Alain de Botton, Wes Anderson...) and to kind of wail to myself, "But they have done so MUCH with their lives, and I have done so LITTLE."

And I also don't like the general tone of most resolutions: "You had fun in the past" they say, "Stop it now, to make yourself a better person." At least, that is what I hear from all the "healthy eating" shows that plague the Food Network this month of the year. (I may cook healthy food most of the time, but frankly, it does not interest me at all to WATCH it being cooked. It would be not unlike a home-decorating show that showed people painting the walls white or cream and setting up the most basic IKEA furniture: no sense of fantasy, nothing that different from regular life).

And so many of the "healthy eating" suggestions are really more about somehow shrinking yourself down to the "magic" size where apparently all your problems go away - even perhaps at the expense of getting the necessary vitamins and minerals.

And as for me, I'd rather concentrate on getting the vitamins and minerals, and maybe having a bit of fun doing it once in a while.

And I find myself particularly bemused by the one being promoted now, in times of financial hardship: "Reduce your spending by 15%." Yes? How? Should I drop my cable and home-internet service - one of the few entertainment expenses I make? Should I give up fresh fruits and vegetables in favor of the more economical canned varieties? I already live fairly frugally...my frustration with the cut-spending-gurus is that they spout advice like, "Don't buy those expensive coffee drinks...make them at home instead!" Yes, dear man, and what of those of us who don't buy those drinks now? (Or what of those for whom that is their sole splurge and one of their few sources of real pleasure?)

(I wonder if that advice is actually intended more for those who are spending beyond their means - those who do not put aside money for their retirement fund before budgeting everything else).

But anyway. Most resolutions either awaken my inner critic too much, or seem far too ascetic to me.

But a number of months ago, I had a comment - I was writing about Everyman's Library and how I thought it was such an interesting idea, and it perhaps showed some of the difference in thought between our time and 100 years previous, and Ellen cited a list of New Year's Resolutions from 1900...and how different they were:

"Pray more"
"Be more considerate"
"Read more Shakespeare"

All of those are interesting "improving" ideas, and ultimately more appealing to me than losing 5 pounds or growing my nails long (the first, I could probably do; the second, I am not so sure about, but then again, long nails don't have much of a purpose for me)

But that last idea...now, that is intriguing. And I kept thinking back to it, and turning it over in my mind. And I think part of the problem with successfully reading Shakespeare is just that - the plays are not so much meant, I think, to be READ, at least as we consider reading these days, as they are to be SEEN PERFORMED.

And it occurred to me - my campus library almost certainly (especially considering we have a large and good drama department, and host a Shakespearean festival each summer) has dvds of some of the plays.

And it occurred to me: I could check out the dvd, watch it, then read the play afterward - and probably make much better sense of what is going on. (I may be smart but I seem to have a mental block for understanding Shakespearean English).

So I am going to make a list. Feel free in the comments to add works I "should" know, but haven't included here.

I did read three of the plays in high school, so I will count them as "already known to me":

Macbeth
King Lear (which actually I might re-read; I don't remember it as well as I think I should)
and, oddly enough: Taming of the Shrew

I have also read most of Midsummer Night's Dream, but I think I will include that on my to-be-read list.

So I will do some comedies:
Midsummer Night's Dream
Much Ado About Nothing (I may have seen that performed, some years ago)
and perhaps, The Tempest (technically it is a comedy)

Those seem to be the ones most widely referred to - and my aim is to acquaint myself with the sort of "educated layperson" form of Shakespeare - to be familiar with the plays that have the most impact on popular culture

And of course, some tragedies:

Hamlet (of course)
Romeo and Juliet (I know the story backwards and forwards but have never actually read the play)
possibly, Julius Caesar or Antony and Cleopatra

And a couple of the histories:

Richard III
Henry V
(Those two seem to be the most widely-known and quoted)

So I think what I may do is see what is available to borrow and watch...and then check out a copy of the play at the same time. And spend a free evening or a Saturday afternoon watching and reading and learning a bit more about Shakespeare.

I like that idea. It is "improving," but not in the sort of strictly-practical, almost-tiresome sense of giving up book-buying or trying to lose five pounds or forcing oneself to eat allegedly-healthy items (like cauliflower) that one has an intense dislike for. It is "improving," and yet at the same time, almost a bit impractical and quixotic in the modern world - knowing more about Shakespeare will never earn me any extra money, it won't likely prolong my life - and yet, it seems very worth doing to me.

6 comments:

Lydia said...

That's a really fun resolution.

Much Ado is great; I was very fond of the Thompson/Branagh version when it came out.

I like the uncut Branagh Hamlet; it's every word Shakespeare wrote.

Also, Twelfth Night can be a fun one; it's a comedy, but a little more grown up than the others. (I think there's a Helena Bonham Carter version that's supposed to be good.)

Anonymous said...

(cheating a bit, looking up the play list) Taming of the Shrew is another one I'd put on the "educated person will encounter it" list, though its approach to relationships and women's characters is problematic at best. Othello's another good one. The Lawrence Olivier version has him in blackface, which is weird, and also has a smokin-fine Maggie Smith (Prof. Macgonagal in the Harry Potter movies), which is also weird.

Less useful but still good if you haven't tired of it by this point: The most recent version of "Merchant of Venice" was a pretty compelling in a probably-not-what-Will-meant kind of way. And The Merry Wives of Windsor would be an interesting double-billing with Henry V. (I've only seen Merry Wives on stage, not sure if any onscreen version is as funny, though.)

I'd also say some of the sonnets, once you've read a few plays to get a sense of the language. I always forget the numbers, though.

Anonymous said...

When I was in college, I took a course in Shakespeare. The professor for some reason unknown to me had the class meet in his house which was not too far from the campus. He had been a professional actor and so he read/acted some of the passages. That made them come alive as reading them from the page never did.

St. Louis has a Shakespeare Festival and I try to go each year. They do one play per year and alternate the tragedies and comedies. Again, the spoken Shakespeare in the hands of a good actor makes all the difference in the world.

Kucki68 said...

Much ado about nothing: get Emma Thomson, Kenneth Branagh and Denzel Washington in your living room, this one I just loved!

Ellen said...

Thanks for putting such effort into what we "talked" about last year. I just read the Madeline L'Engle book "A Ring of Endless Light" and the Austin Family reads aloud one chapter of a Shakespeare play each evening. I think I'll be reading and re-reading the L'Engle oeuvre this year.

Anonymous said...

Definitely the Branagh/Thompson/Washington version of Much Ado.

Also watch the 1989 Branagh version of Henry V. I once saw a compare/contrast on PBS between this version and the 1940 version with Olivier. The Olivier version was during WWII and it played up the glories of war. Rallying the homefront, if you will.

The 1989 version is a bit more "war is hell" but it's great. Especially the visuals of the arrows in the Battle of Agincourt, when Henry defeated a much larger French army, largely due to the superior reach of the English longbows.