Ophelia has been a source of inspiration for countless artists over the years and each artist chooses to represent Ophelia in a different way. The way that Ophelia is portrayed in the John Everett Millais painting is in a higly ominous, haunting, and grim. The way her body is postioned, with her hands up ward, sort of like she was pleading with god to take her off the earth, since death is a very big theame of this play, and she did show signs of loosing her mind before. It's not as if she was upset, she didn't look like she tryed to fight dieing in this picture she looks like she just accepted her faith. The flowers around her, in this painting in a way show what she was feeling the last moments of her life. She wasn't thinking like an adult, but as a child which is why there where crow flowers in the background nettles around the willow, to represent pain. Forsaken love,is what the willow in the background represents, her forsaken love to be with Hamlet. In her hand she was holding the folower that represented sorrow, the sowrrow that she was holding inside her untill she could not hold it any more.
I beleive that Shakespeare intended Ophelia to be portrayed as a girl that acts wimpy, and frail but it's just an act. I don't beleive that she is ment to be only one person and act one way, she is supposed to be mystruous since in every scene of the play she acts diffrent, maybe she was always depressed and thats why she ended it all. Ophenlia's final moments where like a dream, they had to be beacuse she had lost it all, she lost her love, her dad and soon her brain and sense of sanity joined, and faded away. Did she intertinally drown herself...that is a question that I have asked myself a few times I do not beleive it was intentianl in a way. I mean she had lost her mind, so her even jumping into the river to die couldn't of been intentinal, it was just her mind was gone so she didn't think of the consquenses so she jumped in, in my oppinion. Gertrude knew, she knew how Ophelia died, with great detail, she saw it. There could be no other reasoning for it she saw it and she didn't try to help her.
I beleive that the reason for Ophelia's madness is that she lost her boyfriend, who she knew she could never be with beacuse she was never royal, her father was killed by the love of her life, if thats not enough to make someone go crazy I don't know what is. Everyone and everything helped contrubute to her demise not just one thing, she was too weak to handle it all so she desided to take the easy way out. In a way I do feel sorry for her, all the strees and death around her, it influenced her new nutty attitude. If i where to direct the play i would repersent her as if she was crazy, but only beacuse of what has been done around her, I would also direct it so that Gertude is around her when she jumped into the lake, she watched it and didn't help her at all. I would reprsent her as a strong young women who is then torn down due to her surrounds and the pain she has gone through.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Should Hamlet Killed Claudius?
Do you agree or disagree with Hamlet's hesitation to kill Claudius? Is he right for waiting, and thinking about it carefully? Or should he have just shut up and done it already?
Consider carefully ethical issues about murder and cultural issues of honor and filial obligation. Consider also religious ramifications, as they are a thematic focus in the play. And of course, consider whether Claudius is really guilty, what would be the cost if he were not, and what might happen to poor Hamlet if he killed the king considering everyone things he is a madman.
And remember, I will be looking to see what you are writing during the period, so make sure you're really working (you know who you are....). I will see you all tomorrow!
Hamlet is a repectable character, he always lets us know whats on his mind and he is always debating the ethical, philsofical issues that he is faced in his everyday life. One execellent example of this would be when he was telling us the chose between life or deadth, how easy it would be to end it all but knowing you may never come back, knowing you could burn in hell will surly stop and make anyone think.This is exactly why Hamlet hesitated to kill CLaudius, he didnt want to make a mistake, kill and innocent guy, go to hell or even worse have to think about the horrible,unthinkable action that he had commited. So he deisted to wait, to see if Claudius did really kill Hamlets father, and his own brother. Its wrong to kill people, but hamlet beleive if they have done you wrong, killed your family then you must evenge their death. Hamlet waited and I beleive he did the right thing, it tells us a lot about His character that he is smart and that he thinks before he acts.
Consider carefully ethical issues about murder and cultural issues of honor and filial obligation. Consider also religious ramifications, as they are a thematic focus in the play. And of course, consider whether Claudius is really guilty, what would be the cost if he were not, and what might happen to poor Hamlet if he killed the king considering everyone things he is a madman.
And remember, I will be looking to see what you are writing during the period, so make sure you're really working (you know who you are....). I will see you all tomorrow!
Hamlet is a repectable character, he always lets us know whats on his mind and he is always debating the ethical, philsofical issues that he is faced in his everyday life. One execellent example of this would be when he was telling us the chose between life or deadth, how easy it would be to end it all but knowing you may never come back, knowing you could burn in hell will surly stop and make anyone think.This is exactly why Hamlet hesitated to kill CLaudius, he didnt want to make a mistake, kill and innocent guy, go to hell or even worse have to think about the horrible,unthinkable action that he had commited. So he deisted to wait, to see if Claudius did really kill Hamlets father, and his own brother. Its wrong to kill people, but hamlet beleive if they have done you wrong, killed your family then you must evenge their death. Hamlet waited and I beleive he did the right thing, it tells us a lot about His character that he is smart and that he thinks before he acts.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
To be or not to be...
In the Laurence Olivier version of the play he is near an ocean sitting on a rock. Hamlet does have props in this version and he protrayed the mood well. He used the prop (the dagger) well when he was sitting on the rock, he stated that he could just end it all with this daggger and then held it. In this version there was no music and I didn't like the fact that he fell sort of when he was giving the speech to show that he was immagining what would happen and that he is in a trance. In this version like the others his head is the main focus which is beleive is to symbolize what he is thinking and that he is fighting with what is right verses what is wrong. There is no emotion in this version although the way the actor dilvers the speech is sort of gloomy.
In the Zeffirelli verson, Hamlet is in the caticombs, where people would be burried during his time. The irnoy of this is that he is surrounded by death and he is thinking about ending it all, and killing himself. He went down here to get a feel of the dead to get a chance to see what it would be like if he would just be one of them and kill himself. There is no music, but there is no need for it since he is surrounded with death and he is in a gloomgy background already. The lighting that is used hits his face to give it a pale apperence, to make Hamlet look deadlike. This is very important to his speech since it symoblizes what he is talking about.
In Branaugh's Hamlet, Hamlet is talking to himself in the mirrior. This shows that he has a split personality, one wants to end it all while the other is unsure. Also since there are people behind the one way mirror and he is pointing a dagger at it, this might forshadow what will happen to the people behind the mirror soon. There is no music but the mood of Hamlet is not gloomy but angery, he is angery with his life and yet he doesn't want to end it.
Almereyda's Hamlet is the modern version of hamlet. Hamlet is walking though a video store when he passes though the action section and sees fire on the screen of the T.V's in there. The fire is supposed to symbolize self dystrauction along with hell, if he kills himself surly he will go to hell but he will also b dystraong himself. In this version he is also wearing a hat, maybe to bring attention to his head like how in the other ones he was either touching his head or pointing to it. The music in the background is very faint but it sets the mood of sadness and anger along with dispair.
There are many versions of the play beacuse everyone interperts the play diffrently. The directers each want their audience to view the play though their eyes.
In the Zeffirelli verson, Hamlet is in the caticombs, where people would be burried during his time. The irnoy of this is that he is surrounded by death and he is thinking about ending it all, and killing himself. He went down here to get a feel of the dead to get a chance to see what it would be like if he would just be one of them and kill himself. There is no music, but there is no need for it since he is surrounded with death and he is in a gloomgy background already. The lighting that is used hits his face to give it a pale apperence, to make Hamlet look deadlike. This is very important to his speech since it symoblizes what he is talking about.
In Branaugh's Hamlet, Hamlet is talking to himself in the mirrior. This shows that he has a split personality, one wants to end it all while the other is unsure. Also since there are people behind the one way mirror and he is pointing a dagger at it, this might forshadow what will happen to the people behind the mirror soon. There is no music but the mood of Hamlet is not gloomy but angery, he is angery with his life and yet he doesn't want to end it.
Almereyda's Hamlet is the modern version of hamlet. Hamlet is walking though a video store when he passes though the action section and sees fire on the screen of the T.V's in there. The fire is supposed to symbolize self dystrauction along with hell, if he kills himself surly he will go to hell but he will also b dystraong himself. In this version he is also wearing a hat, maybe to bring attention to his head like how in the other ones he was either touching his head or pointing to it. The music in the background is very faint but it sets the mood of sadness and anger along with dispair.
There are many versions of the play beacuse everyone interperts the play diffrently. The directers each want their audience to view the play though their eyes.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Hamlet
Analyze
Using the three versions of the ghost scene that we watched in class, offer your commentary on each film. Consider some of the following points in your critique:
How did the actors portray the characters?
Was there music?
What was the lighting like?
Were there special effects?
How did the director use visual elements (such as flashback) to add depth to the scene?
Overall what was the effect of these choices? Do you agree or disagree with the choices the director made? Which version resonated with you the most?
Extend
If you were to interpret this scene through film yourself, how would you approach it? What in particular would you focus on? What in your opinion, is important about this scene and how would you want to convey that?
For example, what do you want to leave your audience with after watching this scene? Is it the despair that the ghost feels? Or Hamlet's frustration? Do you find fault with Gertrude, and want to cast doubt about her involvement? Or is Hamlet imagining this scene? Could you, through directorial choices, convey that Hamlet is imagining all this?
Assignment
Address these questions, or other topics which you feel are relevant, in no less than 3-4 paragraphs. Draw from what observed in the first three, as well as what you have seen in other films. Consider also, some of the things we talked about, when discussing An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. When you refer to movies you should use the director's last name, and when you refer to the characters, use the actor's last names.
First Version
Director: (Franco) Zeffirelli Hamlet: (Mel) Gibson
Second Version
Director: (Kenneth) Branagh Hamlet: (Kenneth) Branagh
Third Version
Director: (Michael) Almereyda Hamlet: (Ethan) Hawke
Mel Gibson by far was the best actor and played the best role in my oppinion. The movie that Franco Zeffirelli created was the closed resembling one to the play. In my oppinion it protrays fully what shakespeare wanted his aduoance to think of Hamlet. First he was scared and then he realized that his father was murdered unjustly and he vowed to get revenge, at th end of the secne he gave a soloiquiy which was wonderfully expressed, it expressed his anger while he was looking down at the man that took his father away and yet he was still confused and upset that his mother had moved on so quickly marrying the one man that murdered his father. The background was gloomgy it was dusk almost. I lighting was dark to set the mood of suspense and tradity. The music was low and it was sort of haunting like. The choises that this director made where wonderful, he stuck to the script and amazed his audioance with giving them a visual of the play so perfectly.
Branagh's version with him playing as Hamlet was wonderfully unique, i do however perfer the first version but this version was taken out of its original contex and was played around with a little bit. There was fog, smoke, dark lighting, Hamlet and his father met in the forest insted of the Castle. Although hamlet was almost fearful of his father, his father was sort of a "Demon, Devil" like figure. I did not like this atall, in my oppinion Hamlets father was supposed to be pleeding with him to avange him, not scaring his son. Other then that the music was hollow and gloomly along with everything else around them, so I do beleive that Branagh's vision of being diffrent was achived and over all the sence wasn't bad at all, after all the father was wearng armour and there was flashbacks that actually gave us a visual of what happened which made is easier to undrestand, that I appreciated.
Almereyda directed the last version, who's Hamlet was played by Hawke. It was sort of a morden twist to the classical Hamlet play and it was beautifully played out. When the father came in to talk to Hamlet, ofcourse he was not wearing any aroumor but he was dabbing his ear a lot to show what happened, to show that he is cursed to stay on this earth without being able to confess his sins. In this modern day Hamlet was amazing. Although you have to think about the fact that since it is modern day most of the elements, the visual elements in the play had to be taken out for example the armour was replaced with a suite and the background was in Hamlets apartment in a city, cisties in Hamlets time wheren't as modernized as they are now. So many aspects have changed to make this so called modern day Hamlet, but this movie makes you look at Hamlet as if he where here modern day and what would happen. It is an execllent protral of modern day Hamlet although the lack of armour does bother me.
If I had to inertprut this to my own film I would try my best to see what Shakespeare saw and protray it according to how he would of wanted it to. I would go back to the play and re-analize everythnig to see where and when things take place, what the mood of everything is, how certin characters should say things. After seeing this secene I want the audience to feel what Hamlet is feeling, betrayed by his family memeber, hurt that his mother has moved on so quickly, upset and a little crayzed that he talked to his Dad from the dead and how he had just lost him. I would want my aduience to feel Hamlets pain.
Using the three versions of the ghost scene that we watched in class, offer your commentary on each film. Consider some of the following points in your critique:
How did the actors portray the characters?
Was there music?
What was the lighting like?
Were there special effects?
How did the director use visual elements (such as flashback) to add depth to the scene?
Overall what was the effect of these choices? Do you agree or disagree with the choices the director made? Which version resonated with you the most?
Extend
If you were to interpret this scene through film yourself, how would you approach it? What in particular would you focus on? What in your opinion, is important about this scene and how would you want to convey that?
For example, what do you want to leave your audience with after watching this scene? Is it the despair that the ghost feels? Or Hamlet's frustration? Do you find fault with Gertrude, and want to cast doubt about her involvement? Or is Hamlet imagining this scene? Could you, through directorial choices, convey that Hamlet is imagining all this?
Assignment
Address these questions, or other topics which you feel are relevant, in no less than 3-4 paragraphs. Draw from what observed in the first three, as well as what you have seen in other films. Consider also, some of the things we talked about, when discussing An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. When you refer to movies you should use the director's last name, and when you refer to the characters, use the actor's last names.
First Version
Director: (Franco) Zeffirelli Hamlet: (Mel) Gibson
Second Version
Director: (Kenneth) Branagh Hamlet: (Kenneth) Branagh
Third Version
Director: (Michael) Almereyda Hamlet: (Ethan) Hawke
Mel Gibson by far was the best actor and played the best role in my oppinion. The movie that Franco Zeffirelli created was the closed resembling one to the play. In my oppinion it protrays fully what shakespeare wanted his aduoance to think of Hamlet. First he was scared and then he realized that his father was murdered unjustly and he vowed to get revenge, at th end of the secne he gave a soloiquiy which was wonderfully expressed, it expressed his anger while he was looking down at the man that took his father away and yet he was still confused and upset that his mother had moved on so quickly marrying the one man that murdered his father. The background was gloomgy it was dusk almost. I lighting was dark to set the mood of suspense and tradity. The music was low and it was sort of haunting like. The choises that this director made where wonderful, he stuck to the script and amazed his audioance with giving them a visual of the play so perfectly.
Branagh's version with him playing as Hamlet was wonderfully unique, i do however perfer the first version but this version was taken out of its original contex and was played around with a little bit. There was fog, smoke, dark lighting, Hamlet and his father met in the forest insted of the Castle. Although hamlet was almost fearful of his father, his father was sort of a "Demon, Devil" like figure. I did not like this atall, in my oppinion Hamlets father was supposed to be pleeding with him to avange him, not scaring his son. Other then that the music was hollow and gloomly along with everything else around them, so I do beleive that Branagh's vision of being diffrent was achived and over all the sence wasn't bad at all, after all the father was wearng armour and there was flashbacks that actually gave us a visual of what happened which made is easier to undrestand, that I appreciated.
Almereyda directed the last version, who's Hamlet was played by Hawke. It was sort of a morden twist to the classical Hamlet play and it was beautifully played out. When the father came in to talk to Hamlet, ofcourse he was not wearing any aroumor but he was dabbing his ear a lot to show what happened, to show that he is cursed to stay on this earth without being able to confess his sins. In this modern day Hamlet was amazing. Although you have to think about the fact that since it is modern day most of the elements, the visual elements in the play had to be taken out for example the armour was replaced with a suite and the background was in Hamlets apartment in a city, cisties in Hamlets time wheren't as modernized as they are now. So many aspects have changed to make this so called modern day Hamlet, but this movie makes you look at Hamlet as if he where here modern day and what would happen. It is an execllent protral of modern day Hamlet although the lack of armour does bother me.
If I had to inertprut this to my own film I would try my best to see what Shakespeare saw and protray it according to how he would of wanted it to. I would go back to the play and re-analize everythnig to see where and when things take place, what the mood of everything is, how certin characters should say things. After seeing this secene I want the audience to feel what Hamlet is feeling, betrayed by his family memeber, hurt that his mother has moved on so quickly, upset and a little crayzed that he talked to his Dad from the dead and how he had just lost him. I would want my aduience to feel Hamlets pain.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monsters are due on maple street
“The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own for the children, and the children yet unborn.”
In the quote above I believe that Sterling is saying or rather explaining the behavior of mankind. He is saying that mankind has a tendency to be paranoid and blame other people for someone that cannot be explained, blame other people and claim that some supernatural force is helping them do the unexplainable even when the explainable is right in front of their own eyes. He's saying that the most powerful weapon, the most horrific way to destroy the human race is just by letting them be themselves. I believe that this quote sums up the tendency to blame, that mankind has a tendency to blame it's self and for that the consequences are harsh.
In the quote above I believe that Sterling is saying or rather explaining the behavior of mankind. He is saying that mankind has a tendency to be paranoid and blame other people for someone that cannot be explained, blame other people and claim that some supernatural force is helping them do the unexplainable even when the explainable is right in front of their own eyes. He's saying that the most powerful weapon, the most horrific way to destroy the human race is just by letting them be themselves. I believe that this quote sums up the tendency to blame, that mankind has a tendency to blame it's self and for that the consequences are harsh.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Good Night and Good luck
“Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck.”
In this speech I believe that he's saying that people don't stand up for what they believe in like he did, they look at the consequences first then realize that it isn't worth studying or finding out information about, they don't think that the information they give out to the people who want to listen is worth the consequences weather they may be good or bad. I highly agree with his statement. Based on his speech I believe that He would be very pleased with television today since people do look for a story to find and tell people and other people do listen.
Comparing TV and the radio in the time of Morrow to the internet now, I believe that it does help us with our educational needs and the flow of information. If you type in a topic on Google you get so many sites instantaneously and all about your topic it's not just a "box of wires and lights" its so much more then that. Before you had to wait for a certain topic to come up on TV or the radio, now the right information is right below your fingertips.
In this speech I believe that he's saying that people don't stand up for what they believe in like he did, they look at the consequences first then realize that it isn't worth studying or finding out information about, they don't think that the information they give out to the people who want to listen is worth the consequences weather they may be good or bad. I highly agree with his statement. Based on his speech I believe that He would be very pleased with television today since people do look for a story to find and tell people and other people do listen.
Comparing TV and the radio in the time of Morrow to the internet now, I believe that it does help us with our educational needs and the flow of information. If you type in a topic on Google you get so many sites instantaneously and all about your topic it's not just a "box of wires and lights" its so much more then that. Before you had to wait for a certain topic to come up on TV or the radio, now the right information is right below your fingertips.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Act IV
Danforth "Mr. Hale.. their punishment" page 1326
References from the bible have been used a lot so far in this play, which can better explain this time period. Now a days we use references to pop culture to discribe what we mean and not biblical references but in that time every one was familiar with the bible which is why they used terms from it. This says quite a lot about the time period that they where in, it was a puritan society which explains why every one over reacted once one person claimed that the devil is loose in Salem.
References from the bible have been used a lot so far in this play, which can better explain this time period. Now a days we use references to pop culture to discribe what we mean and not biblical references but in that time every one was familiar with the bible which is why they used terms from it. This says quite a lot about the time period that they where in, it was a puritan society which explains why every one over reacted once one person claimed that the devil is loose in Salem.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)