Passion vs Intellect in Shakespeare: Titus Andronicus example 

Q. How did they get the great Patrick Stewart to do this? A: He wasn't famous then. Q: But he looks... A: Yes, he looks exactly the same. It was 34 years ago and he looks exactly the same.

It should be taken to note, he would not perform the role like this. This is an exercise, and it's not like he's spent months learning that role. As an exercise its brilliant though, and patricks acting, god damn

I got this series on DVD years ago. What I find slightly ironic is that there's an episode where they play recordings of old Shakespearean actors from the late nineteenth/early 20th century and laugh about how they "project" (i'e' shout) their lines, but Barton comments that that's how it was done back then in a primarily theatre-based entertainment world without voice amplification technology. The ironic part is that I think since the 1980s, most people would rather see the "emotional" take on Titus, rather than the highlighting of the text. Now we have Netflix and can watch with subtitles... and apart from that, most of us value emotional truth, rather than the (relatively) subdued text-based performance. Times changed from the 1890s to the 1980s, and they have changed again from the 1980s until now.

There is a scene in Star Trek Next Generation, where the doctor, Beverly Crusher, asks Picard to take the time to play a part and rehearse for her play. He responds plainly, "...I'm not much of an actor." Picard's response includes a very subtle, twisted grin. Kudos, Patrick Stewart, I've always appreciated your passion and talent. You are a gift.

It really is amazing how the first run-through is nigh-incomprehensible, but the second is almost as if Patrick Stewart is speaking in plain English.

Honestly considering what had just happened in the scene, I think the first time he did it was a more appropriate chioce. The physical pain alone would cause a very strong emotional response add to that having seen the daughter you loved mutilated and ravaged would have taken any man to a point beyond holding back those emotions! Patrick is an awesome actor!

It's very interesting to see the contrast between the emotional delivery vs. the intellectual delivery of this scene from "Titus Andronicus"...especially since I've heard that this is the difference between the way in which American theater and British theater typically approach Shakespeare. American theater tends to focus on the emotion, whereas British theater (at least historically) has focused on the language.

Both performance were outstanding

Hopkins did a great in-between emotional and intelligent in the movie Titus.

When I think about the title of this mv, two actors come to mind: John Gielgud and Lawrence Olivier. There was probably no actor that mastered the words, getting every nuance of every speech than Gielgud. But when it came to physical approach and taking risks, Olivier was the king. Both actors discussed this on several occasion - and it's interesting to watch the two perform the same scene.

I was kinda mesmerized by Patrick Stewart's acting.

Patrick Stewart is the epitome of acting. This was amazing!

Excellent point, well illustrated. The overpowering emotion of the first version won't allow the listener to "get" the illustration, the image that is painted with the words. The second version was much clearer. Not necessarily always appropriate in its intensity to what was happening, mind, but with time that would have been added. The calmer version is a better starting point.

strange. 30 years ago i watched the Barton series with awe. Now, while still of course relevant points are made, in this case the first version was much more emotionally moving and true to the text. But greeing with most commenters. A final performed version would be somewhere in between both.

I find the first one more fitting, and imagine a compromise of both would likely be best. Chiefly because the second one made me not focus on his words but rather on the fact that he seemed oddly nonplussed; I was thus more wondering how he spoke so calmly at the sky as his daughter was weeping and begging for his sympathies. His attention was focused where mine was not, so I spent more time noting the diversion than the actual intent behind his performance. If one was to give a speech within this situation, it would be to cry out directly to the audience in anger. In fact, that anger seems to be the intention. “You expect me to be quiet and calm in a situation like this? Does nature sit idle when harmed?” The first performance captures that, though it’s clouded in some ways.

Be more afraid of the second version of Titus. Someone's gonna die.

His act had me weeping, knowing all was staged. Such a masterpiece art of work sir Patrick.

2:02 reminds me of Derek Jacobi's character in Frasier.

I could understand both perfectly - in fact if anything I preferred the first.

This was such a clear example of such a delicate concept, holds up so well all these years later. Patrick Stewart is an incredible actor.

Hey man, it's Shakespeare. You get licence to be a little over the top. That's part of the fun.

Feckin' hell that. I started welling up to tears during the first one. Damn Patrick is brilliant then and now.

Sir Patrick Stewart is an amazing actor! Love him!!!! I like the yelling part better than the other part!

I can't really decide which version I like best, I think they could both work in an actual full performance of 'Titus'

Titus Andronicus is such a sad work. It has trully haunting and emotional moments, completely ruined by the absurdity of the events and how uneventful the brutality is. The sorrow of Titus is palpable and the mute screams of his daughter are unsettling, but it's hard to forget that is moment is after the new roman emperor married Rome's biggest enemy for petty issues with his brother, or that two of titus sons were killed in ridiculous and cartoony set up, or that after this Titus will order Livignia to carry his hand with her mouth even thought there's plent of people with their hands free in that scene, or that the goths honestly believe a silly act will convince Titus.

I enjoyed the first version done by Patrick Stewart. He expressed more emotional passion through words thus intellect reigns supreme.

Patrick stewart should have played in the merchant of Venice Film!

I like watching TNG and seeing the Shakespeare come out of Stewart occasionally.

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa........He is VERY good.

Agree the intellectual version is easier to follow but it's very much two extremes here. Would like to see a third way. Must check out Hopkins.

Interesting ? people would comment on the actor's..These are very brave people...Mostly; .This is an exerpt of a Burton class..The .Artistic will take in the exploration. The Critical intellectual will do what they do. Burton great history !!!! many of american greatest actors have taken his perspectives...?.( class ?? workshops ???) . So, Just to learn of humanity, of life this is a gift if one accepts as it is. For a layman open minded, much could be learned from observing these classes....I wish there was a link to all of his classes, or many, or even a few more....Thank you for posting........

"Ravished" sounds so much more genteel than "brutally raped".

THERE....ARE.....FOUR......LIGHTS!

I preferred the first one too; who could possibly speak that calmly after seeing his daughter mutilated and then losing a hand himself? The second one was easier to understand, but where was the emotion?

I saw him perform this play with the RSC as a teenager it was a seminal moment

I can understand peoples' opinion with which performance is stronger. Personally, I like the second presentation better because I can understand what's being said and also I don't know what Titus will do next, which makes it all the more compelling to watch. The first presentation made me burst out laughing, especially when Stewart emphasized the word 'deluge.' Also as an actor with school still fresh even after graduation, the comment on generalizing speeches was something I got a lot from school so explaining what you're feeling makes perfect sense. However, since it is Shakespeare, it's hard to make it big and epic when you've been confined to a box-like frame capturing your performance. So perhaps a marriage between the passionate and the intellectual would capture what the character is feeling at this moment.

I like the first version waaaaay better

Between the two, I'd prefer the more emotional tone than the more intellectual one.

Me too, honestly, as it seemed more emotionally apt considering what was going on in the scene.....Though I readily admit that I could understand the meaning behind the words easier in the second version. Perhaps a variation which is in-between those two extremes would do justice to the words and the emotions?

Much better the second time. But I would have liked to have seen them use the SAME intention, whilst trying to give the words more precedence.

Personally, I liked the first version better.

In what sense is it "not otherwise available"? I have the boxed set and accompanying book, and it is available to buy on Amazon.

Where can I see the full "Playing Shakespeare" video series?

Without keycards I couldn't do 10% of that act. How the hell does he remember all that? Impressive to say the least.

I first discovered Patrick Stewart doing Shakespeare, not Star Trek (although I am a Trekkie from way back).

Let's not threaten the welkin, please.

Patrick Stewart totally crushes it.

To be fair if I’d had a hand cut off, my Daughter had just been raped, tortured, brutalised, and had her hand cut off, and tongue cut out, I think the first version would be the realistic response. Sir Patrick oozing class as always.

@montgomery7 I think it had to not do with just the drama of the situation but with the actual text that Titus says, the whole passage about her sighs and weeping and her pitiful state driving his. Without her there is no other direct stimulus for him saying those lines. It's logical and what the text holds. I'm no expert but I'm just saying... it's there. That's just the text and not delving into the whole psychology of the scene.

Billy Shakespeare was pissed off at someone when he wrote this one,.

2:43 - she sticks her tongue out :P

Patrick Stewart is such an amazing actor!

I prefer the first reading. The second is just unbelievable from someone who experienced that great a tragedy.

Patrick was marvelous but Anthony Hopkins NAILED IT!

Wow bloody hell!

Hear me, hayden christensen, THIS is called ACTING

The host looks like Bob Ross.

I think I prefer the first one.

I've seen the Livinia part played that way before, it's not a choice I would make but really, what does one DO on stage after losing both hands and a tongue?

I preferred John's later work when he moved over to America to paint on TV

Eh I enjoy both interpretations.

I like the first version best...

Is that Imelda Staunton?

Anyone who shouts in an argument... Take note....

5:48 Patrick really lets go of Lisa very quickly and she looks at him and he doesn't respond.

I thought he was holding a cat in the thumbnail

Het tongue and hands had been removed

It's very good, but perhaps a little bit overdone. Although one must project onstage, so there is that...

The actor Holy Grail is to convince.......that's it.......Patrick Stewart convinces.

You should have seen Richard Burton! Now there was a Shakespearean actor.

I think both are valid ways to play it, but I do get what they're trying to get at: In a play, I'd rather have the lines heard, especially since I, as an audience member, want/need to hear the words. Yes, there is a level of emoting that should be done, but not so much to where it becomes unintelligible. Whereas a movie, I do want the more visceral and passionate interpretation, as I feel as a viewer, I feel I should see this man at his lowest, completely broken and vulnerable, what he says is not so much important as is his physicality. And if he just says the words, I don't feel his grief as much. I think a better characterization this excercise could've had was these interpretations are dependent on how the play is being adapted: as a stage show or as a film. I agree with most people that both are equally valid, but note that it is entirely dependent on if the medium of which these plays are adapted are textually, sonically, or visually focused.

Dose any one else find the way Jon Barton dilevers is quite Shakespearian ? ( sorry about my spelling :) X

So is the character begging for help or mercy (or both) or pitty from the heavens?

I thought his overdramatic version was better. His second try was almost distant....

When the heavens weep does the world not overflow? first try was better. ten years later

He has no other hand. :-P

0:58 - 2:35 After a nearly five-decade Starfleet career, including 15 years as captain of the USS Enterprise, Jean-Luc Picard has finally lost it!!

@MrOregona230, LMFAO. XDD

Engage!

The dude is mimicking Sir John Gielgud what's the big deal?

I would direct the actor to be the voice of his daughter that cannot speak

@Kari166 sounds like a slowly deflating balloon

The woman makes sounds like the demon from The Exorcist.

Patrick Stewart's hot.

Don´t go to Church, go to expressionist theater instead.

Not to be distracted but the short tie is extremely irritating.

his head's shape looks most funny in this

"Acting."

Thank God We've enter 21st century and We don't stage these plays like that anymore ! Thinking Shakespeare has to be done that folkloric way today is kinda... well... I have great respect for Sir Patrick Stewart, but he probably watch this and tells himself he got a totally different and modern way to deliver the fullness of such monologues.

The first one was better, but I like overacting.

too much yelling

WIth all due respect but she's rather annoying...Stewart on the other hand, very good...I like the original language spelling as well...

Who watches this stuff?

both Titus speeches were horrible. Stewert spent most of his energy trying to remember the lines He is a better actor then this.