The Best Shakespeare Playtexts For Actors

Shakespeare is not easy. But these books will help make his plays easier.
Website: www.bloomsbury.com/uk/series/...
More videos you might like...
▶︎ New Plays FULL Of Monologues!: • New Plays FULL Of Mono...
▶︎ 5 CICELY BERRY Acting Exercises: • 5 CICELY BERRY Acting ...
▶︎ YOUNG ACTORS Know THESE Playwrights: • Young Actors: Know THE...
▶︎ HOW TO WRITE A PLAY - 10 Playwriting Activities: • HOW TO WRITE A PLAY | ...
◉ ABOUT ME
I’m Alex Packer and I’m a theatre director and workshop leader. I’ve worked in theatre for the last 15 years in the West End, around the UK and internationally as well as in several UK drama schools and universities. I’ve created Apex Drama Tools as a digital resource for teachers and students of drama. These videos can be student-facing resources or the exercises and tools can be adapted and used by teachers. If you want to work with me get in touch [e-mail]
◉ SUPPORT ME - paypal.me/apexdramatools
Want to give back? Then click the link above to donate to the channel. Thank you.
▷ MUSIC
Insatiable by Steven Beddall
Papi Beat - Instrumental Version by Kicktracks
- from Artlist.io
CHAPTERS
0:00 - Intro
0:20 - Complete Works ( pros & cons )
0:56 - RSC Editions
1:13 - Arden Editions ( pros & cons )
1:41 - Arden PERFORMANCE Editions
1:59 - Pros of Arden Performance Editions
3:00 - Great Notes In The Book
3:40 - Where To Buy Them
3:55 - Outro

[@hakonsoreide]

I agree: the Arden Performance editions are possibly the best both for reading for your own enjoyment, as I do, or when preparing for a performance. I love how there is ample space for my own notes, and that the included notes require just a glance across the page and back rather than having to find a note at the foot and then your eye having to find where you were in the text again afterwards. I also like how religious allusions and proverbial references are clearly marked. What I don't like is that their "helpful" notes on rhythm often completely misinterpret the intended meter in the text, especially indicating many anapests that simply aren't there, usually by ignoring elisions that would have been so obvious to the original performers of Shakeapeare they are not even encoded in the spelling of the text. As a poet myself I have noticed this is what happens when people who interpret poetic rhythm generally aren't themselves lyrical poets. While the suggested rhythm can be used, of course, it would have been better if the original intended rhythm was more clearly annotated so that the actor could have understood the starting point better that they could then make an informed choice to deviate from. It is, after all, and very importantly, an actor's prerogative to decide on the rhythm of their own performance, according to their own interpretation of their characters personality, motivation, intent and meaning. It's just a minor quibble, really, but I think it's important to understand how rhythm works since it is the king of poetic devices, and the foundation on which everything else is built. But after an entire century of lyrical poetry being seen as secondary to more modern styles that completely eschew the imagined shackles of many traditional poetic devices, it seems some collective understanding of rhythm simply got dumped in the gutter of Modernism, and no one involved in literary criticism, interpretation or publication seems to have noticed its absence. On a different note, if ordering these directly from Bloomsbury, you get 20% off when ordering ten, I presume intended as an incentive to allow people involved in a production to order in bulk when starting their preparation for a performance, but it also means that right now that is probably the cheapest way to get the current set of all ten published books in the series as it also applies to a mix of titles and not just multiples of a single one.

[@finlayfairfax742]

Just started rehersals for romeo and juliet and was looking for a good copy, so this couldnt have come at a better time

[@ApexDramaTools]

Fantastic timing! Good luck in rehearsals! ^Alex

[@iancossey105]

Personally, I'd still go for the normal Arden editions. Yes, there are a lot of notes, but I'd rather have more information available to me than less (and of course it's not like you're duty bound to read all of them). Cutting down the notes means you could miss some really interesting detail which might help you develop some aspect of your performance, and as good performances of Shakespeare rely (imho) on close reading and nuance, then more info gives you more chance to excel and do something unique. In the end, I guess it just depends how much time you have and how much work you're prepared to put in.

[@hakonsoreide]

If I were an actor preparing for a play, I'd not think of it is an either/or kind of situation. I'd definitely get _both_ editions. The Performance edition for reading and pencilling in my own notes, and the regular Arden for looking things up if I wanted more detail or whenever I felt the notes in the Performance edition were lacking in some way.

[@antoninima9007]

I love the Arden editions for their abundance of information. They're really great for study, but when working on scenes or performance I would like to have a less convoluted page. I have purchased Hamlet, Midsummer, and Lear Performance Editions which are my favorite. But, as mentioned they aren't available for every play (currently, I am looking for Richard II). I am curious to hear your feedback on Folger Shakespeare? Seems like they focus on readability but it's hard to tell when looking through Amazon or digital shopping. In any case, I like the idea of having two copies, one that is more academic and another that is easy to read and more portable.