Everyone goes through tough times in life that can leave them feeling like what is the purpose of their life. With the story Hamlet even he had a feeling like this that he expresses in his 'to be or not to be' speach. Ophelia probably definitley felt the same way, but obviously she didn't really express it verbally, just by the way she acted towards other people, some would say she was crazy. Ophelia has gone through a lot that could have made her feel the way she has and even what lead up to her death. Obviously Ophelia was probably incredibly depressed upon her father Polonius being killed by Hamlet,whom was her 'lover'. She was also probably heartbroken by the way Hamlet has been treating her. I think she was very sad and mistreated most of the time.
Ophelia has definitley lived a somewhat troubled life, with family drama and friend drama, I think her last mommnts before death were probably the most peaceful for her. She was able to pick beautiful flowers in peace. Maybe she was at the point where she just decided to give up with all she has been going through. Maybe she didn't intentionally drown herself but she just deicided to not fight the fact of something that would come naturally, which was her death. I don't think Ophelia went mad like everyone thought she was. She was clearly upset and not at her best behavior after what she went through. I feel sorry that she was young and her death was probably a result of a man she was assumed to love and the man she loved who killed the father she loved. It could be a lot to take in for one person at such short periods of times. Hopefully she is in a more peaceful place now, with less heartache.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Hamlet The Hesistant Killer!?
I think Hamlets hesistantion to kill Claudius is well thought. In the Act it says the reason why he was so hesitant to kill him when we first saw him was because he was engaged in prayer, and to his belif's that would be if he dies while repenting he would go to heaven. Since Hamlet is upset by the fact that his dad was killed offguard he wants to do the same to Claudius. Hamlets wants to catch Claudius offguard just like his father's death to make things even. I think that is a clever but still quite weird. But he did notify people he would be acting weird. So I do agree with his hesistation because he wants to do it on the right time.
With all honesty I don't think he really thought about it super carefully. I think carefully would have been to maybe not do it at all. With Hamlets circumstances I guess he did think carefully as to killing him offguard. It would be more better if he stuck to his plan rather than just getting it over with because his types of belif. I think Cladius is guilty for killing Hamlet's father, specially offguard and only killed for the chance to have his throne. And the heinous nature of how he killed the father was bad too. If I were in Hamlets position I would be full of rage and want revenge. So I think Hamlets plot is okay in a way but, also bad.
With all honesty I don't think he really thought about it super carefully. I think carefully would have been to maybe not do it at all. With Hamlets circumstances I guess he did think carefully as to killing him offguard. It would be more better if he stuck to his plan rather than just getting it over with because his types of belif. I think Cladius is guilty for killing Hamlet's father, specially offguard and only killed for the chance to have his throne. And the heinous nature of how he killed the father was bad too. If I were in Hamlets position I would be full of rage and want revenge. So I think Hamlets plot is okay in a way but, also bad.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
To Be Or Not To Be! ... Olivier, Zefferreli, Branaugh, Almeryda.
The 'to be or not to be' speeches in all the movies we have watched are different but yet the same in some ways. The extremely older Olivier version was very dry to watch. The music was not so dramatic really. It was really as though the actor was thinking outloud and realistic, and at a point there was a voice over and zoom up close to the actos forhead which made it seem it was more inside the actors head that he was thinking such words, and really questioning life or death. The setting around him was really suspensful because he was sitting over a cliff on a rock, so it made you feel like you didn't really know if his emotion would cause him to want to jump off the cliff towards his death. Another good prop that went with the speech was the knife that was unsuspectingly pulled out. It was different towards some of the other version whereas the actor was sitting down majority of the time, in thought. Whereas in the Zeffereli version the actor walked around making it more beliavable he was questioning his motives, in the Branaugh version the acto was still just looking at himself in a mirror, and in the Almeryda version he also was walking around in a public place.
Something else that was different in all the versions but maybe two was that in the Almeryda and the Zefferreli version they were both walking around, but in the Almeryda version which was more modern the actor was walking around in a public movie store. Whereas in the Zefferreli he was walking around in the catacombs of his castle, so it was less public. In the other two version Branuagh and Olivier it was way more subtle with the actor staying in one place through the whole speech. Olivier the actor stayed on the rock near the cliff, in the Branaugh version the actor stayed in front of the mirror the whole time, without realization that he was being spied on by Poloniaous and Claudious.
The Branaugh version seem quite dry to me too, just like the Olivier version. The actor didn't really interact or move around much. He stayed still which made it seem more simple. It seemed less threatening because the setting isnt so scary since he is in his mansion just looking at himself in front of the mirror. There was no visible prop so at first you didn't really think he'd kill himself anyway, until he pulled out his dagger and points at his reflection in the mirror, which made it more beliavable. He bring the dagger up to his face in the reflection making you think that he probably wants to slice into his skin. The emotion in the actors voice wasn't so beliavable and upsetting sounding as the others.
The music in all the version weren't so dramatic. I think the Almeryda version and the Zefferreli version is more beliavable and intresting to watch. The music tends to get louder during the part where they really speak of death or choosing life, and why death would be better. In the Zefferreli version the actor sounds more sad. He is walking down into the catacombs which makes you think, gee he must really be questioning this if he's walking around where dead people rest. The emotion in his voice was deffinitly more beliavable as well. He genuinely sounded like he was depressed and it was leading him to such thoughts about life. It makes it more interesting and really makes you have a feel for the charactor. In his words there was even a hint of anger for him having thoughts as such. In the Almeryda version it was a bit similiar but also very different. Although the setting is very modern and odd for such a dated speech I really think it fits the setting with him walking around. Many people in todays life go out to public places, stores, malls whatever and walk around thinking about something that is bothering them. So with the version of the movie it seems exactly like that, which makes it very realistic. He walks around in the movie store and which goes with his speech directly is that he is walking in the action section and the speech is also action packed in a way. He seemed deep in his thought in the middle of the night I'm guessing because no other people where in the movie store too.
Throughout all the version I think the Zefferrelli version is best with the way things are set up. It's also more beliavable in a sense that you actually feel like the speech is a questioning thought. It's less dry and makes it more appealing towards wanting to watch it. I think all versions have differences that make the scene a good scene with all that is included. The lightening for each scene was different and played a role in most of the factors of the speech.It shows that however the director pairs up props and lighting and even the setting and music makes the whole scene better or worse.
Something else that was different in all the versions but maybe two was that in the Almeryda and the Zefferreli version they were both walking around, but in the Almeryda version which was more modern the actor was walking around in a public movie store. Whereas in the Zefferreli he was walking around in the catacombs of his castle, so it was less public. In the other two version Branuagh and Olivier it was way more subtle with the actor staying in one place through the whole speech. Olivier the actor stayed on the rock near the cliff, in the Branaugh version the actor stayed in front of the mirror the whole time, without realization that he was being spied on by Poloniaous and Claudious.
The Branaugh version seem quite dry to me too, just like the Olivier version. The actor didn't really interact or move around much. He stayed still which made it seem more simple. It seemed less threatening because the setting isnt so scary since he is in his mansion just looking at himself in front of the mirror. There was no visible prop so at first you didn't really think he'd kill himself anyway, until he pulled out his dagger and points at his reflection in the mirror, which made it more beliavable. He bring the dagger up to his face in the reflection making you think that he probably wants to slice into his skin. The emotion in the actors voice wasn't so beliavable and upsetting sounding as the others.
The music in all the version weren't so dramatic. I think the Almeryda version and the Zefferreli version is more beliavable and intresting to watch. The music tends to get louder during the part where they really speak of death or choosing life, and why death would be better. In the Zefferreli version the actor sounds more sad. He is walking down into the catacombs which makes you think, gee he must really be questioning this if he's walking around where dead people rest. The emotion in his voice was deffinitly more beliavable as well. He genuinely sounded like he was depressed and it was leading him to such thoughts about life. It makes it more interesting and really makes you have a feel for the charactor. In his words there was even a hint of anger for him having thoughts as such. In the Almeryda version it was a bit similiar but also very different. Although the setting is very modern and odd for such a dated speech I really think it fits the setting with him walking around. Many people in todays life go out to public places, stores, malls whatever and walk around thinking about something that is bothering them. So with the version of the movie it seems exactly like that, which makes it very realistic. He walks around in the movie store and which goes with his speech directly is that he is walking in the action section and the speech is also action packed in a way. He seemed deep in his thought in the middle of the night I'm guessing because no other people where in the movie store too.
Throughout all the version I think the Zefferrelli version is best with the way things are set up. It's also more beliavable in a sense that you actually feel like the speech is a questioning thought. It's less dry and makes it more appealing towards wanting to watch it. I think all versions have differences that make the scene a good scene with all that is included. The lightening for each scene was different and played a role in most of the factors of the speech.It shows that however the director pairs up props and lighting and even the setting and music makes the whole scene better or worse.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Ghost Scene of Hamlet Branagh, Zeffirelli, Almereyda
After watching all three different ghost scenes from the movie Hamlet, there are obvious differences that take place. In the first ghost scene we watched [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116477/] by Branagh it was extremely dramatic and loud with music to add to all the dramatic and suspensefulness, whereas the Zeffirelli http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116477/ version and the more modern Almereyda http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171359/ where a bit more believable and less dramatic, more calming. In the Branagh version the actor seemed more angered but frightend, all of the actors seem frightend during the scene. The ghost that actually played was also different during each of the scenes. In the more modern Almereyda version the ghost seem more of a ghost because you could see the transparentess of the ghost, he talked in a soothing way whereas the Branagh version was speaking quickly and loud voice. Both the Zeffirelli and Almereyda they were more calm speaking to Hamlet. The big difference in the Almereyda was that the ghost actually touched and hugged Hamlet, and showed more affection that you could see. The Branagh version took place in the woods with no one really around. The other too scenes during the ghost were different Zeffirelli viewing was underground and Almereyda took place on a balcony in a hotel. The music also had a large role in the feel of the movies with the 1996 version being loud and the 1990 and 2000 version more calming where you can really make out what the actors are saying.
To add to how the scene was showed in the Branagh the lighting was really dark and you could see smoke or fog adding to the dramatic feel of the ghost scene, it was dark and mysterous. The Zeffirelli scene was also dark, the Alemeryda version was way more light with the father being inside the son's house with more light. The flashbacks in the Branagh version actually showed of how the father was being killed, where as the Zeffirelli version didn't really cut back to flashbacks of showing what really happend. A good use of props were used in the Almereyda version. I think the choices used in the Branagh version was too dramatic to make it real and in the Almereyda version it was way more realistic. The visual elements in each scene where different the Branagh version showed flashbacks of what happened to the father but I think it was less believeable. The Zeffirelli seemed more believable as it showed the emotion in Hamlet knowing everything about his father from what it was told. The Almereyda version there didn't seem to be much use in the emotion displayed off of Hamlet.
Even though the same scene is displayed in each version there are numerous difference.
To add to how the scene was showed in the Branagh the lighting was really dark and you could see smoke or fog adding to the dramatic feel of the ghost scene, it was dark and mysterous. The Zeffirelli scene was also dark, the Alemeryda version was way more light with the father being inside the son's house with more light. The flashbacks in the Branagh version actually showed of how the father was being killed, where as the Zeffirelli version didn't really cut back to flashbacks of showing what really happend. A good use of props were used in the Almereyda version. I think the choices used in the Branagh version was too dramatic to make it real and in the Almereyda version it was way more realistic. The visual elements in each scene where different the Branagh version showed flashbacks of what happened to the father but I think it was less believeable. The Zeffirelli seemed more believable as it showed the emotion in Hamlet knowing everything about his father from what it was told. The Almereyda version there didn't seem to be much use in the emotion displayed off of Hamlet.
Even though the same scene is displayed in each version there are numerous difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)