Theatrical Conventions of Shakespeare’s Time

Theatrical Conventions of Shakespeare’s Time

Without Shakespeare, the dramatic arts wouldn’t be as advanced and entertaining.

As you may already know theatre is very different today than it was in William Shakespeare’s time. In William Shakespeare’s time boys had to play the girls parts because it was considered risky for a girl to be a part of a play because women were considered uncapable to act. Today women are very vital to plays and theatre. Back in Shakespeare’s time there weren’t very many visual effects such as props and dressing the part. The audience got entertainment from the words of the play. However, today we have a lot of visual effects.

The language in Shakespear’s dramas are very different from today. If you try to read Shakespear’s plays and dramas you might have trouble because of the language barrier. Shakespeare’s language was very formal if you will. Today we use a lot of slang. For instance in Shakespear’s time for the word we pronounce today as you back then was pronounced thou.

Also back in Shakespear’s time the concept of the drama was very serious and sometimes even unheard of. As today we find it very common to see drama and understand it. Shakespear’s time was the sort if revolution of dramatic arts. Without Shakespear I don’t believe the dramtic arts we have today would be as advanced and entertaining.

In Shakespear’s time there was little time for rehearsals and only given the words of their part. Today if you act you get a complete script with everyones lines and you have a pretty good while to rehearse. Also one other big difference is the music. In someplays today you might find some background music and such. Back then they didn’t have any music.

All in all today wouldn’t be as interesting if it would not be for the contributions of Shakespear’s time. Some even believe if it weren’t for Shakespeare we wouldn’t have the entertaining things that we love so dearly today. We need to be thankful for what we have and for what Shakespear’s time contributed.

6
Liked it
13 Comments
The discontented masses, posted this comment on May 5th, 2009

I would like to know who you are. This article appears to have been written by either a 7 year old, or someone with learning difficulties. Seriously, you are even inconsistent with your spelling of Shakespeare, but in the end seem to have plumped for the wrong spelling.

The language use is juvenile, and your points incoherent and overly simplistic. And as for the paragraph about “the seriousness of drama”, it is completely unintelligible. What point were you even trying to make?

You badly need to rewrite your article.

lillie, posted this comment on May 14th, 2009

i agree with the last person…and im in 7th grade!!!!!!! wow…thats really sad!!!! aall im tryin to do is write a report…and with this info, im not gettin anywhere!!!!!

thanks for nothing,
lillie

math nerd 101, posted this comment on Sep 23rd, 2009

i may not be a know it all about shakespeare, but there are many spellin problems… this artical might as well have been written on bathroom paper; because its horrible, and i know i spell alot of wrong, but oh well, im just wrighting a coment im not the writer of this artical!

spareme, posted this comment on Mar 23rd, 2010

On top of that, there are several inaccuracies as well. In Shakespearean times, “thou” was a separate word for “you”, “thou” being the more informal alternative. In Shakespeare’s plays, the language is only formal when certain characters are talking (ie: members of the king’s court, etc.) who would normally use formal language. Often from more lowly characters (actually from almost any character) we hear much slang, although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader because slang in the Elizabethan era was much different from the slang we have today.

I also have to disagree about the alleged rarity of props and “dressing the part.” Characters were always dressed for the part, and props were always used when appropriate. In fact, the lengths people would go to to achieve certain effects are more involved and extravagant than most theatre we see today. For example, in Hamlet, a ghost’s voice is made to be heard from coming beneath the earth by having the actor say his lines underneath the stage. If you do some research, you can find out lots more about this sort of thing.

The allegation that the concept of drama would be unheard of is absurd. People from all backgrounds (from the lowly beggars even up to royalty depending on the venue) would come to see plays, as they were often a relatively cheap source of entertainment; indeed, they were usually the only performing art form that 90% of the population had access to. This was true before Shakespeare’s plays, during, and afterwards as well.

I assure you they had plenty of music in Shakespeare’s time. As for the plays in Shakespeare’s time, there wasn’t quite as much music, true, but from time to time different melodies are sounded by trumpets, preceding entrance of royalty, etc. Musical theatre also existed back then in a less prevalent form than its non-musical counterpart, so your claim is invalid.

If you’ve acted in professional theatre, or talked to someone who has, you’d find out that rehearsal times actually vary quite a bit. Although it’s probably true on average that more rehearsal time is given today, you need to be careful in the wording of your sentences so as not to imply absolutes (e.g. that it holds true in ALL circumstances). This goes for everywhere in your article.

“All in all today wouldn’t be as interesting if it would not be for the contributions of Shakespear’s time.” You don’t need to know anything about Shakespeare to know that’s a completely nonsensical interpretation. Modern daily life is much more complex than that of people living in Shakespeare’s time, and that in itself makes our lives more interesting in that respect. Also, (if you meant that in relation to theatre, which you should specify in your writing) Shakespeare’s effect on theatre was actually pretty limited. We study it because it is masterful, not revolutionary.

“Some even believe if it weren’t for Shakespeare we wouldn’t have the entertaining things that we love so dearly today”
Some? You? Unless you refer to a survey conducted by someone else (with proper notation) or specify who “some” is, it’s completely meaningless. Meaningless as in “an unknown quantity of people between zero and infinity.” The “entertaining things that we love so dearly today” are more commonly known as iPods, cinemas, computers, video games, the internet, pornography, films, sports cars, cable/satellite TV, radio, amusement parks, operas, cruises, etc. The last part of your sentence also uses a technique called “forced teaming”, which is only acceptable among door-to-door salespeople, and has no place outside of persuasive literature.

Your last sentence – sorry, but it’s complete crap. You are to an extent forcing your ethical convictions on the audience – not only is it unenjoyable for people whether they agree or not, but it’s considered rude and in some cases (thankfully not this one) offensive.

I also must mention that your points are completely incoherent and disjointed, simplistic, and offer no original insight nor any evidence of critical thinking, not to mention usually wrong or invalid. As a result your thesis is completely unsupported and consequently appears as absurd.

Also, give this a different title. The current title is utterly unrelated to the work itself, and therefore misleading to people searching for articles actually written on theatrical conventions of Shakespeare’s time.

You refer to many “facts” and allegations about Shakespeare’s time and plays that obviously are not from your own findings; evidently from primitive research (Google maybe?). You need to attribute to the original source anything that isn’t your own thoughts, analysis, opinions, discoveries, or facts that can reasonably expected to be common knowledge to your audience. Hence most of this is plagiarism. I understand that plagiarism is a common practice on the internet; it doesn’t make it acceptable.

This isn’t coming from some university English or Arts History prof. I struggled through English 12, have never studied theatre in an academic environment, and have failed every English course I have taken in university so far.

Please, don’t pollute the internet. At least on your teacher’s desk this would eventually have gotten thrown out or returned to owner.

spareme, posted this comment on Mar 23rd, 2010

On top of that, there are several inaccuracies as well. In Shakespearean times, \”thou\” was a separate word for \”you\”, \”thou\” being the more informal alternative. In Shakespeare\’s plays, the language is only formal when certain characters are talking (ie: members of the king\’s court, etc.) who would normally use formal language. Often from more lowly characters (actually from almost any character) we hear much slang, although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader because slang in the Elizabethan era was much different from the slang we have today.

I also have to disagree about the alleged rarity of props and \”dressing the part.\” Characters were always dressed for the part, and props were always used when appropriate. In fact, the lengths people would go to to achieve certain effects are more involved and extravagant than most theatre we see today. For example, in Hamlet, a ghost\’s voice is made to be heard from coming beneath the earth by having the actor say his lines underneath the stage. If you do some research, you can find out lots more about this sort of thing.

The allegation that the concept of drama would be unheard of is absurd. People from all backgrounds (from the lowly beggars even up to royalty depending on the venue) would come to see plays, as they were often a relatively cheap source of entertainment; indeed, they were usually the only performing art form that 90% of the population had access to. This was true before Shakespeare\’s plays, during, and afterwards as well.

I assure you they had plenty of music in Shakespeare\’s time. As for the plays in Shakespeare\’s time, there wasn\’t quite as much music, true, but from time to time different melodies are sounded by trumpets, preceding entrance of royalty, etc. Musical theatre also existed back then in a less prevalent form than its non-musical counterpart, so your claim is invalid.

If you\’ve acted in professional theatre, or talked to someone who has, you\’d find out that rehearsal times actually vary quite a bit. Although it\’s probably true on average that more rehearsal time is given today, you need to be careful in the wording of your sentences so as not to imply absolutes (e.g. that it holds true in ALL circumstances). This goes for everywhere in your article.

\”All in all today wouldn’t be as interesting if it would not be for the contributions of Shakespear’s time.\” You don\’t need to know anything about Shakespeare to know that\’s a completely nonsensical interpretation. Modern daily life is much more complex than that of people living in Shakespeare\’s time, and that in itself makes our lives more interesting in that respect. Also, (if you meant that in relation to theatre, which you should specify in your writing) Shakespeare\’s effect on theatre was actually pretty limited. We study it because it is masterful, not revolutionary.

\”Some even believe if it weren’t for Shakespeare we wouldn’t have the entertaining things that we love so dearly today\”
Some? You? Unless you refer to a survey conducted by someone else (with proper notation) or specify who \”some\” is, it\’s completely meaningless. Meaningless as in \”an unknown quantity of people between zero and infinity.\” The \”entertaining things that we love so dearly today\” are more commonly known as iPods, cinemas, computers, video games, the internet, pornography, films, sports cars, cable/satellite TV, radio, amusement parks, operas, cruises, etc. The last part of your sentence also uses a technique called \”forced teaming\”, which is only acceptable among door-to-door salespeople, and has no place outside of persuasive literature.

Your last sentence – sorry, but it\’s complete crap. You are to an extent forcing your ethical convictions on the audience – not only is it unenjoyable for people whether they agree or not, but it\’s considered rude and in some cases (thankfully not this one) offensive.

I also must mention that your points are completely incoherent and disjointed, simplistic, and offer no original insight nor any evidence of critical thinking, not to mention usually wrong or invalid. As a result your thesis is completely unsupported and consequently appears as absurd.

Also, give this a different title. The current title is utterly unrelated to the work itself, and therefore misleading to people searching for articles actually written on theatrical conventions of Shakespeare\’s time.

You refer to many \”facts\” and allegations about Shakespeare\’s time and plays that obviously are not from your own findings; evidently from primitive research (Google maybe?). You need to attribute to the original source anything that isn\’t your own thoughts, analysis, opinions, discoveries, or facts that can reasonably expected to be common knowledge to your audience. Hence most of this is plagiarism. I understand that plagiarism is a common practice on the internet; it doesn\’t make it acceptable.

This isn\’t coming from some university English or Arts History prof. I struggled through English 12, have never studied theatre in an academic environment, and have failed every English course I have taken in university so far.

Please, don\’t pollute the internet. At least on your teacher\’s desk this would eventually have gotten thrown out or returned to owner.

spareme, posted this comment on Mar 23rd, 2010

On top of that, there are several inaccuracies as well. In Shakespearean times, \”thou\” was a separate word for \”you\”, \”thou\” being the more informal alternative. In Shakespeare\’s plays, the language is only formal when certain characters are talking (ie: members of the king\’s court, etc.) who would normally use formal language. Often from more lowly characters (actually from almost any character) we hear much slang, although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader because slang in the Elizabethan era was much different from the slang we have today.

I also have to disagree about the alleged rarity of props and \”dressing the part.\” Characters were always dressed for the part, and props were always used when appropriate. In fact, the lengths people would go to to achieve certain effects are more involved and extravagant than most theatre we see today. For example, in Hamlet, a ghost\’s voice is made to be heard from coming beneath the earth by having the actor say his lines underneath the stage. If you do some research, you can find out lots more about this sort of thing.

The allegation that the concept of drama would be unheard of is absurd. People from all backgrounds (from the lowly beggars even up to royalty depending on the venue) would come to see plays, as they were often a relatively cheap source of entertainment; indeed, they were usually the only performing art form that 90 percent of the population had access to. This was true before Shakespeare\’s plays, during, and afterwards as well.

I assure you they had plenty of music in Shakespeare\’s time. As for the plays in Shakespeare\’s time, there wasn\’t quite as much music, true, but from time to time different melodies are sounded by trumpets, preceding entrance of royalty, etc. Musical theatre also existed back then in a less prevalent form than its non-musical counterpart, so your claim is invalid.

If you\’ve acted in professional theatre, or talked to someone who has, you\’d find out that rehearsal times actually vary quite a bit. Although it\’s probably true on average that more rehearsal time is given today, you need to be careful in the wording of your sentences so as not to imply absolutes (e.g. that it holds true in ALL circumstances). This goes for everywhere in your article.

\”All in all today wouldn’t be as interesting if it would not be for the contributions of Shakespear’s time.\” You don\’t need to know anything about Shakespeare to know that\’s a completely nonsensical interpretation. Modern daily life is much more complex than that of people living in Shakespeare\’s time, and that in itself makes our lives more interesting in that respect. Also, (if you meant that in relation to theatre, which you should specify in your writing) Shakespeare\’s effect on theatre was actually pretty limited. We study it because it is masterful, not revolutionary.

\”Some even believe if it weren’t for Shakespeare we wouldn’t have the entertaining things that we love so dearly today\”
Some? You? Unless you refer to a survey conducted by someone else (with proper notation) or specify who \”some\” is, it\’s completely meaningless. Meaningless as in \”an unknown quantity of people between zero and infinity.\” The \”entertaining things that we love so dearly today\” are more commonly known as iPods, cinemas, computers, video games, the internet, pornography, films, sports cars, cable/satellite TV, radio, amusement parks, operas, cruises, etc. The last part of your sentence also uses a technique called \”forced teaming\”, which is only acceptable among door-to-door salespeople, and has no place outside of persuasive literature.

Your last sentence – sorry, but it\’s complete crap. You are to an extent forcing your ethical convictions on the audience – not only is it unenjoyable for people whether they agree or not, but it\’s considered rude and in some cases (thankfully not this one) offensive.

I also must mention that your points are completely incoherent and disjointed, simplistic, and offer no original insight nor any evidence of critical thinking, not to mention usually wrong or invalid. As a result your thesis is completely unsupported and consequently appears as absurd.

Also, give this a different title. The current title is utterly unrelated to the work itself, and therefore misleading to people searching for articles actually written on theatrical conventions of Shakespeare\’s time.

You refer to many \”facts\” and allegations about Shakespeare\’s time and plays that obviously are not from your own findings; evidently from primitive research (Google maybe?). You need to attribute to the original source anything that isn\’t your own thoughts, analysis, opinions, discoveries, or facts that can reasonably expected to be common knowledge to your audience. Hence most of this is plagiarism. I understand that plagiarism is a common practice on the internet; it doesn\’t make it acceptable.

This isn\’t coming from some university English or Arts History prof. I struggled through English 12, have never studied theatre in an academic environment, and have failed every English course I have taken in university so far.

Please, don\’t pollute the internet. At least on your teacher\’s desk this would eventually have gotten thrown out or returned to owner.

spareme, posted this comment on Mar 23rd, 2010

Sorry for the accidental multi-post.

banging sim, posted this comment on Jul 31st, 2010

too late to apologize and its still shakespear bitch tostito fruit bowl.

Your an idiot, posted this comment on Apr 7th, 2011

HAHAHHAHA

banging sim, posted this comment on Jun 28th, 2011

yeah fk off i wrote this in like 5 minutes to make three dollars a day… GTFO you son of a bch
ahahahaha

Stevenbracanovic, posted this comment on Nov 13th, 2011

YOU MY NOT VERY KIND SIR ARE A COMPLTE IMBECILE -.- do us all a favor and never write anything else on the internet, please

some guy, posted this comment on May 31st, 2012

wow all you guys are very mean and that is just sad

that other person, posted this comment on Jun 5th, 2012

i got everything i needed out of this article. thank you very much. now i just need to write a stupid essay for a Romeo and Juliet Pitch for a movie set in the 1920’s. annnnyhoooo, this will take a while.

Leave a Response
comments powered by Disqus