Do you think you have to see Shakespeare's plays performed

If you don't live in London, it will be hard to find a staging worth of your money. An acceptable alternative is Movies or Shakespeare's Globe on screen rips. Try the historical plays first, the Henriad for example. Henry IV is pretty simple and has a lot of comic apartés with the young prince and Sir John Faltsaff that are genuinely hilarious. Look for the 2012 Shakespeare's Globe version, easy to find on TPB. If you like it, watch Henry V and maybe Richard III.
Then, when you are used to shakespearian language, go for his masterpieces. I'd suggest Macbeth, you have many good movies like Justin Kurzel's Macbeth (2015), Roman Polanski's (1970) or Orson Welles (~1960). Don't watch the Royal Shakespeare's version, it has Ian Mc Kellen and shit but the directing is retarded.
Hamlet is damn long but it has some of the best monologues : look for Kenneth Brannagh's 1996 film. King Lear is a really powerful play, look for a stage version, or go for the 1985 japanese film Ran. It has a slightly diffent plot, it doesn't have the text, but it can help you to understand the real one. I hope this will be useful senpai

>>8395734
I went to see a college production of Othello.
>black guy playing Othello
did a 360 and moonwalked out of there

>>8395734
I have never seen live theatre that I have actually appreciated, let alone gleamed sublime pleasure from. I'd rather read Lear amd see the characters moving in their worlds in my mind than watch some butchered, abridged rendition (or worse, an contextually-transformed translation) and waste three hours of my time.

I personally don't think you have to. His plays are epic as fuck. However, you have to take your time when reading them: put some thought into what he's trying to convey. If you try to fly through, they will seem like a heap of shit, and you won't want to read another one of them again (it's the same if you're forced to read him for your class or something along those lines).

>>8395772 he's got the right idea. A dirctor is very likelly to butcher a play due to a variety of reasons, it's better to not see them.

I dove head first into Shakespeare: Romeo & Juliet, Othello, now reading Hamlet. All awesome, fantastically written.

>>8395772
>I'd suggest Macbeth, you have many good movies like Justin Kurzel's Macbeth (2015),
I want to hurt you so much. That movie was garbage.

File: article-2402671-1B78ABE0000005DC-201_634x455.jpg (27KB, 634x455px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 634x455px

>>8395734
>Do you think you have to see Shakespeare's plays performed in person to appreciate them?

not necessarily actually performed, but you do have to be aware that they were written to be performed. some parts of the plays only really work when read out loud. there is lots of wordplay etc that doesn't work very well on the page.

>What's the best Shakespeare play?
>Are his comedies or tragedies better?

i don't think there is a single correct answer to these questions. i like twelfth night meself. or king lear.

>What's the best play for a beginner?

a midsummer night's dream or romeo and juliet.

File: temp_file20141028-16184-1bq9k59.jpg (51KB, 437x562px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 437x562px

>>8395807

>>8395938
>I have never seen live theatre that I have actually appreciated
Damn, that's pretty sad tbph. I love going to the theatre.

Kiss me, Kate was pretty good when I saw it

>>8395745

>'historically inaccurate' black casting meme

Winter's Tale? One of my favorites. They're doing it again this year, set in Imperial China it looks like. Weird choice to me, curious how it works.

To gain a full understanding and appreciation, yes, you must. Not necessarily because it's Shakespeare, but because it's drama. It was meant to be seen first and foremost, but also read.

However, you don't have to see it live. Just get a good recorded production (of which are plenty) and watch it after reading the text.

>>8395734
I despise reading plays.