I'd skipped over the generation gap thread until now, Celt, when I browsed/skimmed through it.

You're right, I think, in a way: modern audiences are more attuned to visual cues than generations past, and so, for us, the visual details such as costuming and sets can make a big difference in how we receive the plays. But in this case, I think the gap is wider than "over 30" and "under 30" (just add a zero to those two numbers). ;-)

Shakespeare's culture was much more aural/oral than ours -- his was the first generation that had state-supported schools promoting universal literacy as a goal. And in his day, the phrase was: "Let's go hear a play," rather than "Let's go see a play." Indeed, even the word "audience" belies this bias of generations past.

What makes me ... uneasy ... is the sense I get from some productions that they feel they have to "put on" a modern style of performance in order for the audience to 'get it' (but not all modernized productions, by any means).

What makes me *squee!* with delight is that Shakespeare's works are strong and flexible enough to withstand a multitude of interpretations. In the 1700's for example, Beatrice, from Much Ado About Nothing, was typically played as a shrew. In Kenneth Branagh's 1993 film version, she was played as a "pleasant-spirited lady." And both interpretations rang true for their audiences. Just as with real people that we meet, what strikes one as bitchy strikes another as vivacious and charming. His characters can fit just as well in an imagined far future, a distant past, and the present time.

I started this thread to discuss all the different ways we can handle Shakespeare's songs, and by extension, the whole of his plays -- not to argue that one way is necesarily better than another.