Shakespeare in the Washington Post
An interesting addendum to my last post: This morning's paper contained an editorial by Marc Fisher from The Washington Post in which this sentence appeared: "'You don't need to see Leonardo DiCaprio's Romeo and Juliet after reading the play in ninth grade,' says Montgomery Schools spokesman Brian Edwards." The article applauds the school district in question for cracking down on the movies that teachers in the school district have been showing in classrooms. Here's what Marc Fisher had to say: "In all too many schools, teachers eager to look cool or do less work shock parents by showing movies that are not only inappropriate but of zero educational value." Hmmm. That one set me thinking. While I wouldn't consider showing any version of Romeo and Juliet in its entirety, I have played clips from various stage presentations and Hollywood productions, including the one with Leo D., to all my classes. Contrary to Marc Fisher's seemingly ignorant opinion, I had a valid and educational purpose for doing so.
(I recognize that there may be teachers out there who depend far too heavily on movies in their curriculum, but I think Fisher's smug assumption that they are doing it to shock parents is off the mark. In fact, it seems to me that if a teacher were trying to get away without doing much teaching, the last thing he would want to do is get parents worked up by showing questionable movies; this might make someone actually start checking in on his classes to see what was going on. His best bet would be to stick with the pre-1960s movies and hand out lots of worksheets. This is merely a parenthetical aside based on 17 years of watching lots of other teachers. Obviously Marc Fisher doesn't know what he's talking about -- the failing of most blowhard editorialists.)
So how does showing a clip from the modern Romeo and Juliet contribute to students' education? For one thing, it reaches students who wouldn't otherwise be engaged in the story at all. If you think merely reading a Shakespeare play is going to engage most students today, you must have been raised by stodgy English professors. Most ninth graders today could barely make sense of the text alone, and even the best teacher can only make the interpretations of the monologues and soliloquies interesting for so long. Shakespeare was intended to be performed and seen, not merely read. Modern performance includes movies. Movies are for modern audiences what plays used to be for Shakespeare's contemporaries. Movies made from Shakespeare's texts show that his stories are indeed "classics" and that he merits study because he has survived the test of time.
That said, many students to whom I have shown the clips of the recent version of Romeo and Juliet don't like it. (Read Patti's response to my previous blog.) Most of them, in fact, prefer the Zefferelli version that is 40 years old (which I also show bits of for purposes of comparison). Placing Shakespeare's words in the mouths of gangsters doesn't work for a lot of students, but the fact that the action of the story can be carried by the magic of Hollywood (costumes, fight scenes, special effects) rather than the dense text of The Bard allows modern students to understand Shakespeare in a way the text alone does not. They can see that the underlying human issues upon which Shakespeare based his play still exist in our world even though we are no longer a society that appreciates his poetry. (And for some students, it might even be the invitation they need to study the text in more detail, maybe even on their own outside of the classroom. You know: genuine learning.) This lesson is part of what teachers of literature are expected to impart to their students: the timelessness of Shakespeare's work. Just telling them won't cut it; showing them makes the connection obvious. And, most importantly, they then have to make their own informed decision about which version they prefer and why, which is the most immediately valuable skill they could learn.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that teachers should use more movies in the classroom, and I am not suggesting that some teachers don't overuse them, but to write them off as educationally useless (as Marc Fisher does) is idiocy. An irony worth pointing out, and one that I'm sure Gentle Will would smile on, is that even in his day, Shakespeare's work was considered low and vulgar by much of the population. In fact, the angry conservatives referred to in the Washington Post article who are so upset by the movies shown in classrooms seem unaware of the fact that Shakespeare's plays are full of dirty jokes, sexual references, and implied violence. A lot of Shakespeare is R-rated not because of stuff that Hollywood throws in but because it was there to begin with--400 years ago! I wonder how long it will be before some of those ill-informed critics actually study the plays and start banning them in school districts across the country.
(While that would remove Shakespeare from the classroom, it would also make him an even stronger force upon the popular culture because, as I've learned from half a career in the classroom, the surest way to get students to check out a book is to tell them they can't.)
(I recognize that there may be teachers out there who depend far too heavily on movies in their curriculum, but I think Fisher's smug assumption that they are doing it to shock parents is off the mark. In fact, it seems to me that if a teacher were trying to get away without doing much teaching, the last thing he would want to do is get parents worked up by showing questionable movies; this might make someone actually start checking in on his classes to see what was going on. His best bet would be to stick with the pre-1960s movies and hand out lots of worksheets. This is merely a parenthetical aside based on 17 years of watching lots of other teachers. Obviously Marc Fisher doesn't know what he's talking about -- the failing of most blowhard editorialists.)
So how does showing a clip from the modern Romeo and Juliet contribute to students' education? For one thing, it reaches students who wouldn't otherwise be engaged in the story at all. If you think merely reading a Shakespeare play is going to engage most students today, you must have been raised by stodgy English professors. Most ninth graders today could barely make sense of the text alone, and even the best teacher can only make the interpretations of the monologues and soliloquies interesting for so long. Shakespeare was intended to be performed and seen, not merely read. Modern performance includes movies. Movies are for modern audiences what plays used to be for Shakespeare's contemporaries. Movies made from Shakespeare's texts show that his stories are indeed "classics" and that he merits study because he has survived the test of time.
That said, many students to whom I have shown the clips of the recent version of Romeo and Juliet don't like it. (Read Patti's response to my previous blog.) Most of them, in fact, prefer the Zefferelli version that is 40 years old (which I also show bits of for purposes of comparison). Placing Shakespeare's words in the mouths of gangsters doesn't work for a lot of students, but the fact that the action of the story can be carried by the magic of Hollywood (costumes, fight scenes, special effects) rather than the dense text of The Bard allows modern students to understand Shakespeare in a way the text alone does not. They can see that the underlying human issues upon which Shakespeare based his play still exist in our world even though we are no longer a society that appreciates his poetry. (And for some students, it might even be the invitation they need to study the text in more detail, maybe even on their own outside of the classroom. You know: genuine learning.) This lesson is part of what teachers of literature are expected to impart to their students: the timelessness of Shakespeare's work. Just telling them won't cut it; showing them makes the connection obvious. And, most importantly, they then have to make their own informed decision about which version they prefer and why, which is the most immediately valuable skill they could learn.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that teachers should use more movies in the classroom, and I am not suggesting that some teachers don't overuse them, but to write them off as educationally useless (as Marc Fisher does) is idiocy. An irony worth pointing out, and one that I'm sure Gentle Will would smile on, is that even in his day, Shakespeare's work was considered low and vulgar by much of the population. In fact, the angry conservatives referred to in the Washington Post article who are so upset by the movies shown in classrooms seem unaware of the fact that Shakespeare's plays are full of dirty jokes, sexual references, and implied violence. A lot of Shakespeare is R-rated not because of stuff that Hollywood throws in but because it was there to begin with--400 years ago! I wonder how long it will be before some of those ill-informed critics actually study the plays and start banning them in school districts across the country.
(While that would remove Shakespeare from the classroom, it would also make him an even stronger force upon the popular culture because, as I've learned from half a career in the classroom, the surest way to get students to check out a book is to tell them they can't.)
posted by MRT at 7:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home