“Imaginative Enactment” — Teaching Romeo & Juliet in the classroom
Between 1992 and 1994, BBC2 broadcast 12 half-hour animated episodes of a series titled Shakespeare: The Animated Tales. Aimed at a young audience, each episode of the Welsh-produced series was a condensed 26-minute version of a Shakespeare play. Aged between 7 and 9 at the time of the series’ initial broadcast, I recall being captivated by the productions of Richard III and Hamlet. Something that appeared very “grown-up” had suddenly been made very accessible, appealing and intriguing to a keen young viewer. Whilst I would not experience Shakespeare in the classroom until secondary school, the interest had now been planted at an early age.
The success of The Animated Tales led to the formation of Shakespeare Schools Festival (SSF) in 2000. In 2009, 17 years after the premiere of The Animated Tales, I joined the pool of freelance Venue Managers who facilitated the smooth running of the day’s events and performances in allocated theatres across the country. In addition, I worked in various roles at Shakespeare’s Globe, prior to beginning teacher training. Through working in these positions, I developed an interest in young people’s responses to Shakespeare and how the plays, when used and taught effectively, can be used to captivate, challenge and perhaps even change pupils, at least in their attitude towards Shakespeare and a particular play. As a trainee English teacher, I was able to bring my knowledge and experience of Shakespeare to the secondary classroom and experience first-hand these transformative developments in pupils’ learning.
Here, I want to reflect on my own teaching of Romeo and Juliet, discussing the experience and progress of my pupils in studying the play and the development of my own subject knowledge in teaching Shakespeare. To begin with, I give an overview of the approach pioneered by Rex Gibson, who helped to identify the key reasons for teaching Shakespeare. Following this, I then move onto exploring how these objectives were delivered through the scheme of work that I used with my Year 9 pupils and how their engagement, learning and progress were developed through their study of the play.
Teaching Shakespeare
I was first ‘taught’ a Shakespeare play through in full as a Year 9 student and, ironically, that play was Romeo and Juliet. From 1994, it became compulsory for Year 9 students to study Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar or A Midsummer Night’s Dream as part of the Year 9 KS3 SATs examinations. Upon reflection, it was not a particularly enriching experience. Our lessons took place in a disused portacabin, devoid of any displays or ‘feeling’ of an English classroom, whilst the set activities extended no more beyond reading the play and sitting the exam. For the exam, testing both reading and writing skills, pupils were required to answer a question on a set scene of the play with a time limit of 1 hour and 15 minutes. RSC Education’s Tracy Irish effectively encapsulates and critiques the approach of the exam at the time:
“Questions were traditional literary questions, regarding the play as a story fixed with a range of interpretation rather than a script for performance”. [1]
In retrospect, this failure to understand and capitalise upon the opportunities of working with Shakespeare as “a script for performance” is surprising, considering the variety of practical approaches to Shakespeare explored, discussed and employed throughout the 1980’s and 90’s. The main catalyst for this, of course, was Rex Gibson’s Shakespeare in Schools project. Running the project for five years between 1984 and 1989, Gibson strived for an active and flexible approach to the study of Shakespeare:
“It is in that context of dramatic realisation that the plays are most appropriately understood and experienced. The consequence for teaching is clear: treat the plays as plays, for imaginative enactment in all kinds of different ways”. [2]
The methods of “imaginative enactment” that Gibson explored saw the plays as scripts, using active, drama-based approaches, with Gibson arguing that “such methods deepen and enhance students’ informed personal responses” [3] . Inevitably, there has been criticism of Gibson’s work. Sarah Olive summarises such criticism as focusing on Gibson’s didactism, methodology and unrealistic suggestions and expectations for teachers, given the restrictions of time and physical space. Olive also notes the significant technological advances, implemented in the classroom, which have taken place since the 1980’s [4]. Laptops, podcasts and e-books are now readily accessible and available to pupils whilst teachers have the convenience of DVDs, the internet and interactive whiteboards as multimedia tools to engage pupils with Shakespeare. In the context of Romeo and Juliet, there is also the legacy of Baz Luhrman’s 1996 film, which as Irish correctly notes, “had a profound impact on the teaching of Shakespeare in the classroom”[5]. Despite the limitations and advances since then, Gibson’s project remains the benchmark for studies in teaching Shakespeare and the theoretical aspects of his work, when reflecting on Shakespeare in the classroom, cannot be overlooked.
At the outset of the project, Gibson outlined 15 important reasons for teaching Shakespeare [6]. From teaching Romeo and Juliet to Year 9 pupils, and directly seeing the results, I found four of these to be particularly important and effective during the scheme of work.
- Shakespeare requires demystification
- Shakespeare’s relevance
- Shakespeare’s language helps pupils develop their own writing
- Shakespeare feeds pupils’ imaginations
There is another question to be addressed as well; why teach Romeo and Juliet in school? The play has been a staple of KS3 study since 1993/94. Since then, Julius Caesar has been dropped, Macbeth has been included whilst Much Ado About Nothing has been back and forth. Yet, Romeo and Juliet, along with Midsummer’s, has been a consistent main-stayer. Why? What do pupils exactly learn through Romeo and Juliet? How does Romeo and Juliet offer opportunities for what Gibson termed as “successful School Shakespeare?”. Also, did my own teaching utilise these opportunities and was my subject knowledge developed sufficiently?
The Scheme of Work
Following an argumentative writing unit, Year 9 pupils began their study of Romeo and Juliet mid-way through the Autumn term. The SoW consisted of two halves. For the first, pupils worked towards a reading assessment to answer this question:
Explore the ways Shakespeare presents and uses the idea of conflict in Romeo and Juliet.
Instead of reading the entire text, a pamphlet of key scenes from the play — where conflict was most evident — was produced for the pupils. For the second half of the SoW, pupils then completed a writing assignment. They were required to chose one of the key characters from the play and write a dramatic monologue for that character, in response to the following brief:
Imagine you are a character from Romeo and Juliet, but you are living in the 21st century. Write a monologue which reveals aspects of your character and situation. The character must reflect on their experience.
After a period of preparation and rehearsal, the pupils then performed their monologues in class to obtain a level in speaking and listening.
1) Shakespeare requires demystification
The “demystification” of Shakespeare to pupils is both a necessity at the outset of beginning such a SoW (especially if the pupils are encountering Shakespeare for the first time) and a cumulative outcome of the pupils’ learning. Each activity, in one way or another, should contribute to the “demystifying” of Shakespeare, so that he becomes, as Tracy Irish expresses, “far less likely to be perceived as a distant authority figure of cultural heritage but more as a resource to explore, experiment and play with [7]”.
In the first lesson, prior to their reading of the play, pupils were introduced to the theme of conflict, being encouraged to think about what they understood by the word ‘conflict’ and the various types of conflict that people experience. In the second lesson, as an introduction to Shakespeare’s language, pupils were introduced to ‘Shakespearean insults’ and asked to compose their own, using a class example. As well as effectively introducing the central theme of conflict, both activities helped to begin the process of “demystifying” Shakespeare to the pupils. Through encouraging them to think about the conflicts they may see, or indeed even experience in their daily lives, I was hoping to forge a potential connection between the pupils and the play, even at this early stage. Through reading, sharing and then finally writing their own Shakespearean insults (e.g. “Thou art an art-less, clapper-clawed hedge pig; a villainous, idle-headed foot-licker” were one pupil’s examples), pupils were shown that, as opposed to being an archaic, alien figure of authority, Shakespeare is something that the pupils indeed could “play with”.
Following their reading and understanding of the prologue, the pupils then began their reading of the play with Act 1, Scene 1, where the Montagues and Capulets brawl in the streets of Verona and are reprimanded by Prince Escalus. As well as opening the play, the scene immediately focused the pupils on the theme of conflict and how it is central to the world of the play and the characters. After reading and discussion of the scene, the pupils then began to watch the Luhrman film. Instead of showing the film from beginning to end, the film was screened in parts with activities and tasks structured around the narrative. The film acted as a structured frame for the pupils’ learning, as well as an effective strategy to keep them engaged. Using the film did pose some limitations. Some pupils tended to refer to the film when discussing scenes in the play; for example, some pupils commented that the setting of the first scene took place in a “petrol station”, that violence and conflict were shown by the use of guns and that Juliet committed suicide by shooting herself.
2) Shakespeare’s relevance
Neil King, during the time of Gibson’s project, dismissed Romeo and Juliet as a play “full of violence and hatred with which I do not particularly want to deal with thirteen-year olds”[8]. Yet, ultimately, it is the very theme of conflict, such a deterrent to King, which endears the play to Year 9 pupils. These pupils are in their early teenage years and so its understandable how the theme of conflict and its playing out in young love, relationships with family and friends, resonates strongly with them.
The appeal of Luhrman’s film to young viewers, often previously uninterested and uninspired by Shakespeare, I believe, lies in its success in transporting a text that the pupils initially find boring and irrelevant into something exciting and challenging which resonates with their own lives. Luhrman’s film capitalises upon the theme of conflict ingrained in the play and expresses it through apowerful visual aesthetic, which catches the attention of young teenage pupils; swords become guns, characters drive fast, flash cars, “fair Verona” becomes Verona Beach. Most significantly, the film shows to pupils that Shakespeare is a script, an ‘unfixed’ text for reintrepetation and experimentation. This resonates with pupils and helps them to approach their reading of the play with a more open and enquiring attitude, as well as an eagerness to read Shakespeare’s words aloud for themselves. Indeed, reading of the play in class between sections of the film, was not greeted with groans or apprehension but with enthusiasm, with pupils eager to continue and to be chosen to read as the characters. Yet, as helpful as the Luhrman film is, Irish makes an important point about its use within class:
“…simply showing the film is not enough — it is our job to give today’s students the opportunity to explore contemporary symbolism just as Shakespeare in his time was using his language to create images in the minds of the more aural society he lived in”. [9]
3) Shakespeare’s language helps pupils develop their own writing
For the second part of the Year 9’s study of Romeo and Juliet, the pupils moved onto a writing unit. Having finished reading the play and watching the Luhrman film, pupils were initially asked to brainstorm and discuss who they thought was most responsible for the death of Romeo and Juliet. In groups, they worked through each of the key characters (Montague and Capulet, Romeo and Juliet, Friar Lawrence, Nurse, Tybalt) but also considered themes central to the plot (Lust, Fate).
Following this, they were set the task of creating a tabloid newspaper headline reporting on the death of Romeo and Juliet. After being taken through the key features of tabloid headlines and newspapers, they then had to write their own. Pupils then had to write an opening paragraph reporting on the death of Romeo and Juliet, emulating the style of a tabloid newspaper. Effective examples included “R.I.P R & J”, “ Rest in Bed”, “The Stars Have Fallen” and “Death of The Two Houses”.
The next task was for the pupils to develop an opening paragraph in the style of a tabloid newspaper. After discussing features of tabloid newspapers, pupils were then encouraged to write their own using the headline they created in the previous lesson. One memorable headline from a pupil was “Friar or Liar?”. Using this headline, I modelled an example opening paragraph with the class. The following ideas were contributed by the pupils themselves:
“The city of Verona was left stunned today by the sudden, tragic death of two star-crossed lovers. Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet were found dead, lying in Friar Lawrence’s church. Prince Escalus, ruler of Verona, is conducting an investigation into the deaths. Juliet’s nurse, who wishes to be unnamed, has reported that Juliet, who many believed to be dead, was in fact alive and stabbed herself after Romeo committed suicide by taking poison”.
Witnesses have come forward to testify against Friar Lawrence. One source said “He’s just a priest. What is he doing giving drugs to young teenagers? What a stupid man!”.
The pupils then worked independently on their own opening paragraphs. In this activity, the students were making sense of the play through a familiar medium of today and through the creation of their own headlines and paragraphs, took ownership of the play for themselves.
The pupils were set the task of writing a dramatic monologue for one of the key characters. Interestingly, the most popular choices were not Romeo or Juliet but Capulet and Lady Capulet. This was not dependent on gender; some boys wrote as Lady Capulet, some girls wrote as Lord Capulet. During class discussion, pupils argued sympathetically for Juliet’s situation, yet for the writing task, the majority chose to express the anger of the parents towards Juliet’s refusal of marriage, indicating perhaps that pupils were more drawn to exploring the internal family conflict between Juliet, Lord and Lady Capulet than the feelings, emotions and experiences of the other characters.
Through the monologue activity alone, various pupils, previously struggling, made progression in group intervention sessions. The below extract is from James who progressed from Level 4a to 6c in writing:
“I will kill those who stole my beloved goddess. Oh Romeo, Oh Romeo. God punish your whole family and take your spirit away. Restore my daughter or you will be awakened by the thought that keeps your soul from sleep. If thou hear me, you, from burning hell, will be ready for my deathly spirit, which will rip your family’s hearts and feed them to you”.
The development of James’ use of language is particularly impressive. Students were not prompted to emulate Shakespeare’s style or language yet, interestingly, many of them chose to do so. James uses phrases like “my beloved goddess”, “restore my daughter”, successfully emulating a Shakespearean style, whilst his vocabulary is also notably stretched (e.g. “awakened”, “deathly”).
Another pupil who made notable progress through the monologue activity was Pavel, who progressed from 3a to 5b. An extract from his monologue follows:
“Curse all Montagues! That wretched Romeo thinks he could play around with the king of cats. No! I spit on his grave, indeed. There is no other like me. I am the king, the warrior and the one who can never be brought down. This so called ancient grudge, its all back to me, its all talk, no fight. No ancient grudge can hold me back”.
The strength of Paval’s extract is in its capturing of Tybalt’s ‘voice’; one gets a sense that this is indeed Tybalt speaking. Like James, Pavel also alludes to Shakespeare’s language, with his use of words such as “curse”, “wretched” and “ancient grudge” also marking the improvement in quality of his own writing.
4) Shakespeare feeds pupils’ imaginations
The monologue activity served as an effective closure to the SOW in that, following on from their learning and understanding of the play, pupils were given the opportunity to ‘play’ with Romeo and Juliet for themselves. Most significantly, it underscored how Shakespeare is fundamentally drama / theatre. The pupils had to become their selected character; they had to convince the audience that they were speaking in that character’s voice, use the appropriate tone and exhibit the emotions and feelings associated with that character.
As an English teacher, I have discovered that its important for Romeo and Juliet, and any Shakespeare play, to be taught as “a script for performance”. Rather than a fixed text to be studied desk-bound for examination, Shakespeare, when used and taught effectively, allowing pupils fulfilling opportunities for immersion in “imaginative enactment”, can be an exciting platform for students to explore, not only language and literature, but themselves as young people.
References
- Irish, T (2008) Teaching Shakespeare: A History of the Teaching of Shakespeare in England [p.11]. Royal Shakespeare Company. Avaliable at https://warwick.academia.edu/TracyIrish
- Gibson, R (1998) Teaching Shakespeare. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p.12
- Irish, T (2008) Teaching Shakespeare: A History of the Teaching of Shakespeare in England [p.6]. Royal Shakespeare Company. Available at https://warwick.academia.edu/TracyIrish
- Olive, S (2012) ‘Shakespeare and Schools: The Legacy of Rex Gibson’ Teaching Shakespeare (1) p.6–7
- Irish, T (2008) Teaching Shakespeare: A History of the Teaching of Shakespeare in England [p.15]. Royal Shakespeare Company. Available at https://warwick.academia.edu/TracyIrish
- Gibson R (1989) ‘Why Teach Shakespeare?’ Shakespeare and Schools (10) p.14–15
- Irish, T (2008) Teaching Shakespeare: A History of the Teaching of Shakespeare in England [p.16]. Royal Shakespeare Company. Available at https://warwick.academia.edu/TracyIrish
- King N ‘Starting Shakespeare’ (1985) in R Adams (ed) (1985) Teaching Shakespeare, p.64
- Irish, T (2008) Teaching Shakespeare: A History of the Teaching of Shakespeare in England [p.15]. Royal Shakespeare Company. Available at https://warwick.academia.edu/TracyIrish
Bibliography
Banks F (2013) Creative Shakespeare: The Globe Education Guide to Practical Shakespeare, London: Bloomsbury
Davison J and Downson (eds) (2009) Learning to Teach English in the Secondary School, London: Routledge
Gibson R (ed) (1992) Cambridge School Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
