Many hate all of Shakespeare but for those who like him, which of his plays don't you like and why?
I have to admit that I find something to admire in everything he writes since just his language is amazing. Obviously, King John is not as interesting as King Henry IV Part I. Which do you think are less interesting?
2006-08-06 22:53:18 · 7 answers · asked by ? 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Theater & Acting
It's hard to get excited about any of his works. I think people "like" them just because they are told over and over in school that he's so great. They feel that id they don't say he is great they will look uneducated or backwards.
Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about.
2006-08-06 23:00:21 · answer #1 · answered by N3WJL 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, come on. You gotta love "Titus Andronicus". I mean, I can see that you might be put off by the buckets of blood, but it's not really that much worse than gouging Gloucester's eyes out, on stage, in "King Lear". And the reward for sitting through it is a set of really strong, unapologetic characters who have this big clash of wills and one-upmanship that results in total destruction. Every other Shakespeare villain goes to his death with some realization of his wrongs and last-minute remorse. But Aaron the Moor says his only regret is that he didn't do more evil. Unabashed villainy -- even more than Richard III. If you take glee in watching Richard's machinations, how can you not be fascinated by everything that goes on in "Titus"? It's the play of a very bold young writer, filled with bravado and brashness that keeps it from being "deep" or "great", but it's hard to deny how much fun it is to watch.
2006-08-11 03:53:37 · answer #2 · answered by greenman 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Titus Andronicus can be a very fun to do because of its dark and gruesome theme but its not worse than many Greek Plays before Shakespeare it can be a bit disturbing having your young actress running around with no arms or tongue.
Many dismiss his history plays very fast but it really depends on how its staged. But for me my least favorite of all is "Winter's Tail"
2006-08-07 08:42:58 · answer #3 · answered by pozpigwhore 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no issue with Titus, how often can you get that gorry on stage and still be doing a classic. I do not care for the comedies as much, I know he was younger when writing them, btu I don;t think they are as well done. The big stinker in my book is Two Gentlemen of Verona, there are so many holes in the text, the sotry is more contrived than most of the comedies, and the ending is pretty weak. That being said, it does have love and a bit with a dog, so...
2006-08-07 09:02:52 · answer #4 · answered by Steven K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never been a big "Timon of Athens" fan, myself. But, I'm splitting hairs; all of the plays have something to recommend them.
I agree with the majority of respondents thus far: "Titus Andronicus" is a swell play. Yeah, it's twisted...but that's part of the fun. Think of it as the Elizabethan version of one of the "Saw" films.
2006-08-08 01:58:01 · answer #5 · answered by shkspr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoa, whoa, what do you mean "apart from"? I love Titus Andronicus.
I actually don't think there is any Shakesperean play that I don't like. There are some that I enjoy less than others, but I don't think there are any I actively dislike.
2006-08-07 07:59:13 · answer #6 · answered by ewok 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't give any star rating to "The Tempest".
2006-08-10 22:02:03 · answer #7 · answered by John (Thurb) McVey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋