Goodness me, I don't! I love Shakespeare's verse - it has such beautiful imagery that would be completely lost with modern dialogue. You don't have to understand everything but I would have thought the gist of it should come across in performance. Admittedly I might not be the best judge as I've never had problems with Shakespeare - even loved studying it at school!

I couldn't understand the first Shakespeare I watched either.

But I watched another and suddenly something just clicked in my head and I understood what they were saying.

Mel Gibson's Hamlet is a good one to watch to tune your brain in. It's played very clearly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_%281990_film%29

For a pop culture adaptation try Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_%2B_Juliet

The one I was watching when my brain clicked into the language was Kenneth Branagh in Hamlet (he is amazing) but that one is about ten hours long so I'm not going to recommend that if you don't like Shakespeare yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_%281996_film%29

This still keeps to the verse though but yes visually it's modern and very kitsch.

I think thats the nub - anyone but Shakespeare

I've heard of Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Walter Ralaigh and even Queen Bess herself.

I favour the idea it was a mysterious 'Doctor' who travelled in a magical Blue Box

Does it matter who wrote them? The plays exist. Let's be grateful for that.

Well we're not the ones disputing it - that's the tinfoil hat anti-Stratfordian brigade. Most members of the public are perfectly happy to take them as they are - the conspiracy theorists are the ones causing the fuss.

Speaking of which, I have actual documentary proof - not only that Shakespeare wrote all his own plays, but that he once tried to pull an alien.

Yeah. Conspiracy theorists, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

(For documentary proof: see my Who boxset.)

The HISTORY is what I am interested in. I just would love to understand what these guys are on about on TV. They might be great actors but my dog Jasper makes more sense:yawn:
I know what they are about by the books I have read, BUT to get this history to joe public on TV thy need to talk sense
Thank God the books I have read about this part of our history is clear.

Well many people in this thread alone (and in Guardian comments etc) seem to have liked this adaptation and understood it or at least got the gist. Last time I checked we were all 'Joe public'. Yes some people may have been confused but I haven't seen many people complaining elsewhere online. If it was in modern speech then so much would be lost as I said above. If history (no need to shout at me in capitals!) is what you're primarily interested in then there are plenty of history documentaries that you can watch; however this is a play by a renowned playwright, admired by foreigners the world over. No need to do the yawning icon to get your point across either - the beautiful Shakespearean verse is anything but boring to most of us who were completely riveted by this adaptation.

Also you mustn't be aware of this but Shakespeare departs from historical fact in his plays, so if you're primarily interested in the historical aspect then it's probably not a good idea to use his plays to learn from. He uses Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland as one of his sources but don't think that Shakespeare's Richard is the same as the historical Richard; there are some differences.

Shakespeare is not an historian, but a playwright. If you are watching him for historical fact you are backing the wrong horse.

People watch Shakespeare for the drama and the poetry. If listening to the ( perfectly clear) speeches of his protagonists hurts your ears, then tough luck, don't watch.

Very few of us would prefer Shakespeare dumbed down so that people who usually watch nothing more complicated than East Enders can understand it ("Leave it out, Bolingbroke, I already give yer me crown, wot more d'yer want, eh?").

Haha I was also trying to imagine a version of this in modern English and came up with something similar in my head.

Mistress Quickly : Ged aaaaaahrt o' my pab.

Thought Ben Whishaw was brilliant, as was Rory Kinnear. Ben Whishaw is my fave actor, sublime, beautiful and a chameleon, compare his Richard to his Ariel in the film The Tempest.

Have you tried watching with the subtitles on?

I do that for most drama because my hearing is not what it was, but I think that even someone with perfect hearing who is not used to Shakespeare would benefit from seeing the words on the screen. You see the words a split second before they are spoken and that helps you get a full understanding. Shakespeare does say things in a very different way from modern speech and if you are not used it this can mean that you miss a lot.

In fact the only way I would go to a theatre production of Shakespeare is if they had sur-titles: and I know that is not going to happen.

Oh God, whatever else .. lets not dumb down.

Act II, Scene 1:

GAUNT: Is the King coming? I want a word

YORK: He's on his way but he ain't in the mood for listening

GAUNT: I'm about to pop my clogs, of course he'll listen

YORK: Nah, the King'll only listen to his smarmy mates

GAUNT: I fink England's lovely but that King Richard is making a right old mess of it. If everyfink was all right I'd die a happy man.

[KING RICHARD enters]

RICHARD: You slag

GAUNT: You slag

RICHARD: You slag

GAUNT: You slag

etc.

I don't think it's a matter of dumbing down. ftsemonks wants historical accuracy and clear modern English. Fine. History books provide that. History books aren't a case of dumbing down.

Mistaken expectations, that's all.

I was not having a go at you so don't have a go at me either. I do understand what you are trying to say.
I better not use any caps or smiles with You

What a stupid post

I hadn't heard of The Tempest film, so thanks. It looks fantastic. Ben Whishaw is perfect casting for Ariel - and wow, a female Prospero in Helen Mirren.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKG4nRtOwrA

Lighten up.

I wasn't 'having a go' at you. I was merely trying to explain that many of us actually like Shakespeare's verse so the BBC certainly shouldn't stop dramatising it just 'cause one or two people don't - also that you shouldn't expect to learn history from one of his partly fictional plays.

Wow! That looks good. Amazon, here I come. Thanks raadsel and Bad Juju for calling my attention to it.

Tonight director Trevor Nunn is talking about The Tempest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k7mjt

My favourite adaptation is Peter Greenaway's wonderful Prospero's Books with Sir John Gielgud as Prospero.

It was ok. Screenplay was excellent but I do lose interest in the actoring with Shakespeare monologues. My lack of feel for the language in the long monologues (as the fey Richard II often had) just loses me I'm afraid.

One thing bothered me: why weren't they rowed ashore instead of being dumped off to wade through the breakers every time?

I've no interest to see Shakespeare dumbed down to cater for my ignorance and it's good to see how well this has gone down with Shakespeare enthusiasts.