Gloria Castrillon on Teaching “Romeo and Juliet”
I
had enjoyed Shakespeare at school, but no more nor less than, for example, The Great Gatsby. I had enjoyed some
Shakespeare at university (notably Macbeth
taught by Professor Martin Orkin), and had not enjoyed others (King Lear, taught tragically boringly by
another professor who shall remain nameless). I only enjoyed Lear after I saw the movie Ran and re-read Lear alone. By 1989, I had decided to abandon the English
Literature department (into which I had been accepted for Honours) and move to
the African Literature department – a move I was never to regret. I completed
my Honours and Masters in African Literature, and there developed a love for
Shakespeare that was fed, ironically, by the greats of African literature,
whose works spoke back to the English literature they had studied, and forward
to the authors they in turn would inspire.
Then,
in 1990 and 1991, I was a full-time teacher at a school in the Johannesburg
CBD. I was tasked with teaching Wuthering
Heights and Romeo and Juliet to
matriculants from townships all over the greater Johannesburg area. I was a
little mollified by the fact that Romeo
and Juliet is as simple a Shakespearean text as Wuthering Heights is a difficult Gothic text. I was determined to
make Shakespeare not scary for the students (they told me they were terrified).
I was determined they would enjoy it. What I did not expect was how much I
would enjoy teaching it to them. The innuendos, the ribaldry, the puns were
perfect for a teenage audience. The love story was ideal. The fact that there
was a Romeo in Grade 11 and a Juliet in Grade 12 (although they did not love
one another) was a synchronicity I could not have asked for.
And
so we read every single line of the play together; we laughed at the Nurse,
railed at the Friar, and spoke loudly to Romeo and to Juliet. We finished
reading the play and then I played the 1968 Zeffirelli Romeo and Juliet for the classes. When Romeo walks on, the gasps
were audible. The girls were smitten. I soon picked up on the giggling, though,
and enjoyed explaining what a codpiece is. The boys were greatly relieved. We
all laughed. Then Juliet came on. The boys were entranced, and thus began a
wonderful experience. We watched it as much and as often as we could; we
re-read bits from the play; we debated why they had left out Juliet’s
soliloquy; we wondered who we would have cast in their places. What I will
never forget is the tears at the end of the movie. I could not understand why
the students were reacting so emotionally; after all, they knew that Romeo and
Juliet both die, having read the play end to end. “But Ma’am,” they exclaimed,
“this is a movie! People don’t just die like this in movies!”
There
is no question that Shakespeare spoke to those students; there is no question
that he spoke again to me. Equally, that play brought us together. We laughed
and giggled, and smirked, and cried, and ranted and raved together. But the day
that I really knew that Shakespeare had found a place in the hearts of the students
was the day one of the really tough kids in my classes (often hungover on a
Monday from a weekend at the shebeen) leaned over the balcony and cried:
“But, soft! what light through
yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the
sun.
Arise, far sun, and kill the
envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with
grief,
That thou her maid art far more
fair than she:
Be not her maid, since she is
envious;
Her vestal livery is but sick and
green
And none but fools do wear it; cast
it off.
It is my lady, O, it is my love!”
When
I exclaimed, “Emmanuel, I thought you hated Shakespeare!” he replied, “I memorised
it for you, Ma’am, because I love him now!”
Image: www.telegraph.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your unrestrained arguments here