Ophelia lived a tragic life. From a distraught boyfriend to an abrupt ending, Ophelia did not have a happy life. Now that we look back, maybe death was the best thing for her and maybe, is what she wanted. There is not saying whether she took her own life but she should be honored anyways. This tragic ending was not her fault, but the fault of her surroundings.
If I lived her life, I wouldn't fight death either. She was forced to stop seeing the only boy she ever loved. Then she watched him go crazy believing that it was he fault. This would take a toll on this once sweet girl. Then she finally snapped when Hamlet killed her father. That is when death didn't seem that bad to her and she didn't fight the drowning. So we should remember her as a tragic story, and a struggle of a life that could of been avoided.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Hamlets Dilemma
I don't agree with Hamlets decision to not kill Claudius when he had the chance. He had already done all of his planning to see if Claudius was guilty. The only reason he had to hesitate was because he was angry and wanted Claudius to suffer in the after life. I believe Claudius did kill his dad because of his reaction to the play. The ghost of his dad did not ask for Hamlet to make Claudius suffer, he just asked Hamlet to kill him. Also waiting for a better time might cause problems in the future ( like killing Polonius). If they would think he is a madman, waiting for another time would not change there opinions.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
To be or not to be?
The four "to be or not to be" speach was depicted in different ways in the four films that we watched. In the Olivier version the scene was very plain. Not much action exept the waves of the ocean over the side of the castle and him pulling out the dagger. The music was quit until halfway through the speach when he started talking instead of thinking. I would have liked it better if he acually was doing something other than sitting there thinking. Other than that i think it got the scene down pretty good and it kept my attention which is always good.
Mel Gibson's version of the speach was a differnt take on the original setting. Instead of on the castle the scene was in the catacombs. The scene made sense because he was talking about death were dead people are buried. He also was in a dark setting. He did not use a dagger to show his action, but he used the caskets, lights, and actions to act out the speech. This was my favorite version of the scene because he was very active and not boring. He was moving and acting around and you have to actually watch it instead of the first one because they aren't doing anything.
In Zeffirelli's version he was talking in to a mirror to himself. He was also being spied on by his two friends just like in the play behind the mirror because it is a two way mirror. I thought that the acting of the scene was boring because he never changed his tone of voice. It was almost like he was reading it from a script. I also could barley hear him and it was kind of boring. I didn't like this version because nothing happened to catch my attention. The concept of talking to himself in the mirror was good but other than that i didn't care for it.
The Ethan Hawke version was weird but i get the imagery. He was in a Blockbuster walking down the movie isles and was thinking the speech for most of it. There was also a TV in the back with fire in it, just like in the ghost scene, which is like the fires from hell. He is also was walking down the action isles but never took anything. Get it, he didn't take action ! I get the idea of the movie, but i still don't like it because it is just weird to do a modern Hamlet. And the Arnold Schwarzenegger version was what Shakespeare had in mind.
Mel Gibson's version of the speach was a differnt take on the original setting. Instead of on the castle the scene was in the catacombs. The scene made sense because he was talking about death were dead people are buried. He also was in a dark setting. He did not use a dagger to show his action, but he used the caskets, lights, and actions to act out the speech. This was my favorite version of the scene because he was very active and not boring. He was moving and acting around and you have to actually watch it instead of the first one because they aren't doing anything.
In Zeffirelli's version he was talking in to a mirror to himself. He was also being spied on by his two friends just like in the play behind the mirror because it is a two way mirror. I thought that the acting of the scene was boring because he never changed his tone of voice. It was almost like he was reading it from a script. I also could barley hear him and it was kind of boring. I didn't like this version because nothing happened to catch my attention. The concept of talking to himself in the mirror was good but other than that i didn't care for it.
The Ethan Hawke version was weird but i get the imagery. He was in a Blockbuster walking down the movie isles and was thinking the speech for most of it. There was also a TV in the back with fire in it, just like in the ghost scene, which is like the fires from hell. He is also was walking down the action isles but never took anything. Get it, he didn't take action ! I get the idea of the movie, but i still don't like it because it is just weird to do a modern Hamlet. And the Arnold Schwarzenegger version was what Shakespeare had in mind.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Ghost scene
The First Ghost Scene
The first ghost scene was portrayed very differently in all three movies. In the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet, Hamlet is running with dark, ominous music in the background. There is also alot of special effects and cutaway scenes to try to help you understand the story. I did not like this use of cutaways because these sudden jumps from the story takes away from the mood of the scene. The lighting was dark and mysterious and i think that was the perfect lighting to show the serious and mystery of the scene
The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet was my favorite version of the Ghost scene. The lighting captured the mood of the scene just like the first one but the acting of the scene was what sold this scene. You can tell the anger and confusion of Hamlet because of the dialogue. The music was also very ominous. This version didn't use any cutaways so you had to pay attention or already know what was going on to understand it, but if you did i really think this version really captured the scene.
The Ethan Hawke version of the scene was very different take on the ghost scene of the scene and the whole play itself. The setting of this Hamlet is a more modern version set it New York. The ghost scene is alot different because he doesn't go chasing after this ghost, the ghost shows up in his apartment. He was in a dimly lit apartment watching TV and when the ghost showed up there was the image of fire on the screen, which can be symbolism for the anger of the ghost to get revenge for his death or they can represent the fires of hell because he is dead. The ghost also uses a napkin where he constantly wipes the side of Hamlet's face which can represent where he was poisoned and the scare that his father's murder will cause if he doesn't avenge his death.
The first ghost scene was portrayed very differently in all three movies. In the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet, Hamlet is running with dark, ominous music in the background. There is also alot of special effects and cutaway scenes to try to help you understand the story. I did not like this use of cutaways because these sudden jumps from the story takes away from the mood of the scene. The lighting was dark and mysterious and i think that was the perfect lighting to show the serious and mystery of the scene
The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet was my favorite version of the Ghost scene. The lighting captured the mood of the scene just like the first one but the acting of the scene was what sold this scene. You can tell the anger and confusion of Hamlet because of the dialogue. The music was also very ominous. This version didn't use any cutaways so you had to pay attention or already know what was going on to understand it, but if you did i really think this version really captured the scene.
The Ethan Hawke version of the scene was very different take on the ghost scene of the scene and the whole play itself. The setting of this Hamlet is a more modern version set it New York. The ghost scene is alot different because he doesn't go chasing after this ghost, the ghost shows up in his apartment. He was in a dimly lit apartment watching TV and when the ghost showed up there was the image of fire on the screen, which can be symbolism for the anger of the ghost to get revenge for his death or they can represent the fires of hell because he is dead. The ghost also uses a napkin where he constantly wipes the side of Hamlet's face which can represent where he was poisoned and the scare that his father's murder will cause if he doesn't avenge his death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)