Just like the sweet girl said, there once were Violets, but they have since withered because another has died.
So instead the Rosemary has sprung to life again now that Ophelia has parted from this place.
The maid has departed once again, but this time it is a gloomy song being sung.
Ophelia lived listening to the opinions around her. Not because she was weak, but because she knew she was loved and wanted to allow those people to help her. To guide her through uncertainty.
When Ophelia's love had grown mad, she did not hide away or place the guilt onto another.
The last few weeks of her life were spent trying to help heal Prince Hamlet.
She could have turned her back and shunned him, but like the spiritual girl she was she went against negative impulses to help heal the future of our nation.
That is why we are unfortunately here today. Ophelia was a good example of a Christian Maiden whose life was strongly altered by the evil forces of this temporary world.
May Ophelia rest and find the peace that was stolen from her.
May the Heavenly father be as welcoming to her as she was to this world, even when her mind was already gone.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Sunday, May 10, 2015
To Kill or Not To Kill: Hamlet's Dilemna
After the "Mouse Trap" scene in Hamlet, Claudius's guilty conscious starts to show. He confesses out loud in his prayer that he seeks forgiveness for killing King Hamlet. Hamlet overhears it all, and draws his sword preparing to kill Claudius. But as the prayer goes on Hamlet starts thinking; would killing Claudius now actually be revenge if he ends up in Heaven for confessing his sins?
Hamlet's hesitation to kill Claudius is understandable. His father's ghost mentioned how he is forced into a purgatory type place until he can burn off his sins because he died before a final confession. Why should Claudius die and have a chance at entering Heaven when he is responsible for both King and Prince Hamlet's suffering? Waiting until there is a more vulnerable time to strike was very wise in my opinion. It may lower Hamlet's chances to get revenge, but what is revenge if the murderer dies with internal peace?
If Hamlet was to have killed Claudius in that moment, his problems would not have been solved. Even though Hamlet was the rightful heir to the throne after King Hamlet's death, and still the heir after Claudius's death, everyone at court thinks he is truly mad. So he would be the first suspect of the one who committed murder and treason against the king. His title might have saved him if he did not pretend to be mad, but because he did he would have made it more likely for him to die as well.
Now only is Hamlet believed to be mad, but the only other people to know the truth about Claudius's crime are Horatio and the two men who first saw the ghost. What are the chances they would be believed if they took Hamlet's side? That is even if they did. With another King day no one might want to get involved in investigating the trust; was Claudius actually guilty? For all we know as followers of the play, Hamlet could actually be mad and created the ghost and everything that has happened in the play so far in his head. None of what we know could even be true. Imagine if Shakespeare had decided to make us root for Hamlet the whole play, but in reality when writing it he kept it hidden that he made it so Hamlet went insane a long time before the story even started.
Hamlet's hesitation to kill Claudius is understandable. His father's ghost mentioned how he is forced into a purgatory type place until he can burn off his sins because he died before a final confession. Why should Claudius die and have a chance at entering Heaven when he is responsible for both King and Prince Hamlet's suffering? Waiting until there is a more vulnerable time to strike was very wise in my opinion. It may lower Hamlet's chances to get revenge, but what is revenge if the murderer dies with internal peace?
If Hamlet was to have killed Claudius in that moment, his problems would not have been solved. Even though Hamlet was the rightful heir to the throne after King Hamlet's death, and still the heir after Claudius's death, everyone at court thinks he is truly mad. So he would be the first suspect of the one who committed murder and treason against the king. His title might have saved him if he did not pretend to be mad, but because he did he would have made it more likely for him to die as well.
Now only is Hamlet believed to be mad, but the only other people to know the truth about Claudius's crime are Horatio and the two men who first saw the ghost. What are the chances they would be believed if they took Hamlet's side? That is even if they did. With another King day no one might want to get involved in investigating the trust; was Claudius actually guilty? For all we know as followers of the play, Hamlet could actually be mad and created the ghost and everything that has happened in the play so far in his head. None of what we know could even be true. Imagine if Shakespeare had decided to make us root for Hamlet the whole play, but in reality when writing it he kept it hidden that he made it so Hamlet went insane a long time before the story even started.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
To Pass the Critiques or Not To Pass the Critiques: My Opinion of the "To Be or Not To Be" Solilioquy
The quote "To be, or not to be," is said by many people. Not everyone knows the true meaning of those words, and the depth they hold. When the play Hamlet is adapted into a film, the directors have the scene played out how they imagine it to be, just like any other part of the play. Since the To Be or Not To Be soliloquy is so famous, the scene is one of the more critiques ones.
Lawrence Olivier's adaptation of the scene is one of my favorites. Hamlet is laying across the top of the castle overlooking the ocean as the waves crash against the rocky coastline. As he speaks about life and death, and contemplates the pros and cons of each one, he is literally on the edge. I like how Hamlet being so close to the edge the audience might not be sure if he will fall or not parallels what he is saying about choosing between living and killing himself. Then as he goes into the part of his soliloquy where he talks about why people choose life, he jumps off the edge and onto a flat part of the castle where he is more safe than before. Also, when Hamlet talks about a Bare Bodkin, I like how he pulls one out. He mentions death came come so easy, even from a Bare Bodkin. So showing how easy it was to come across the dagger, or way of death, was a nice detail I appreciated. The way the character physically shows what's going on in his mind really caught my attention.
In Zeffirelli's version, Hamlet is walking throughout the catacombs beneath the castle. He is walking where the living would go to see the dead, like how his speech his about living but death also being so close and an option. Mel Gibson plays Hamlet as if he is truly mad in this scene, which seems to fit how Hamlet might feel in that moment. I liked small details in the scene, such as the light fading as Hamlet walked down the stairs to the catacombs. Like how Hamlet was directing his mind into a darker place at the same time. One detail I disliked about this adaptation was that once again the scene was too dark in multiple moments, making it hard to focus on what was being shown.
Branagh's adaptation caught my attention again as well. Having Hamlet clutching the dagger and twirling it within his fingers while speaking into the double sided mirror was great. The scene kept me interested as the tone of Hamlet's voice varied from a calm, not aware that he was thinking out loud voice, to a tone that seemed threatening.
Almereyda! On my last blog post I may have been a bit too hard on Almeryda's adaptation, but this scene impressed me. It placed Hamlet in a Blockbuster store where he was aimlessly walking around the aisles. As his speech started to turn towards the point of where Hamlet mentions action and how not everyone takes it, Hamlet walks down another "Action" film aisle. There he looks back and forth, almost unsure of what to do. Like what he mentions in his soliloquy. There were also moments where Hamlet was not moving his mouth, but instead there were voice overs so it was actually like being in Hamlet's head. Which is how the play would have been written if styled like a book.
Seeing another scene from the different adaptations of Hamlet gave me even more insights to how others view Hamlet. The "To Be or Not To Be" scene had me far more impressed with each film compared to just seeing the also famous Ghost scene.
Lawrence Olivier's adaptation of the scene is one of my favorites. Hamlet is laying across the top of the castle overlooking the ocean as the waves crash against the rocky coastline. As he speaks about life and death, and contemplates the pros and cons of each one, he is literally on the edge. I like how Hamlet being so close to the edge the audience might not be sure if he will fall or not parallels what he is saying about choosing between living and killing himself. Then as he goes into the part of his soliloquy where he talks about why people choose life, he jumps off the edge and onto a flat part of the castle where he is more safe than before. Also, when Hamlet talks about a Bare Bodkin, I like how he pulls one out. He mentions death came come so easy, even from a Bare Bodkin. So showing how easy it was to come across the dagger, or way of death, was a nice detail I appreciated. The way the character physically shows what's going on in his mind really caught my attention.
In Zeffirelli's version, Hamlet is walking throughout the catacombs beneath the castle. He is walking where the living would go to see the dead, like how his speech his about living but death also being so close and an option. Mel Gibson plays Hamlet as if he is truly mad in this scene, which seems to fit how Hamlet might feel in that moment. I liked small details in the scene, such as the light fading as Hamlet walked down the stairs to the catacombs. Like how Hamlet was directing his mind into a darker place at the same time. One detail I disliked about this adaptation was that once again the scene was too dark in multiple moments, making it hard to focus on what was being shown.
Branagh's adaptation caught my attention again as well. Having Hamlet clutching the dagger and twirling it within his fingers while speaking into the double sided mirror was great. The scene kept me interested as the tone of Hamlet's voice varied from a calm, not aware that he was thinking out loud voice, to a tone that seemed threatening.
Almereyda! On my last blog post I may have been a bit too hard on Almeryda's adaptation, but this scene impressed me. It placed Hamlet in a Blockbuster store where he was aimlessly walking around the aisles. As his speech started to turn towards the point of where Hamlet mentions action and how not everyone takes it, Hamlet walks down another "Action" film aisle. There he looks back and forth, almost unsure of what to do. Like what he mentions in his soliloquy. There were also moments where Hamlet was not moving his mouth, but instead there were voice overs so it was actually like being in Hamlet's head. Which is how the play would have been written if styled like a book.
Seeing another scene from the different adaptations of Hamlet gave me even more insights to how others view Hamlet. The "To Be or Not To Be" scene had me far more impressed with each film compared to just seeing the also famous Ghost scene.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Hamlet's Ghost Scene: Analyzing Interpretations
In class we watched three different versions of the Ghost Scene from Hamlet. Each one brought its own unique traits. Whether the traits are how the actors portrayed their characters, how the mood was set, or the overall direction the films' directors take it.
The first adaptation watched was created director Franco Zeffirelli, who led Med Gibson as Hamlet and Paul Scofield as Ghost King Hamlet. I enjoyed this version because it did not seem to take many leniencies from the original play; the setting was accurate and I felt the same emotions from the characters on screen as I did when reading their lines from the playbook. Some may argue the Ghost had far too emotion for a supernatural creature, but I liked how you could his emotions play off of what he was saying. The anger when talking about his brother and the truth of his murder, but crying when talking about Gertrude and wanting his death to be avenged. In historical times, a king on his death bed would summon his heir to speak with him (seeing as the heir was usually a male). The King would speak with his son about the leader he was expected to be, before having some final words with each other. The emotions conveyed in the conversation between Ghost King Hamlet and his son reminded me of those father/son moments Hamlet was refused due to his father's murder. While the acting was, in my opinion, fantastic, the background was at times distracting. Considering the sun was on the horizon I would expect some more light, even just enough to be able to see the characters. I like how the background music had a somber tone to it, and eve created suspense in the beginning, but at times was overdone. The camera panned back and forth between the characters, almost reminding me of someone listening in on a conversation and moving their head back and forth. The feel I got from that reminded me of reading the play; delving into a story but not a part of it. Just silently observing.
In Branagh's adaptation of Hamlet I still had some favorable moments, while others threw me off. I preferred how in this version there was a realistic color to the sky for the time of night. Not only did it follow the play but it made it easier to see. The acting was well done by both Hamlet (Branagh) and Ghost King Hamlet (Brian Blessed). The emotion portrayed by Hamlet was more excited to speak to the ghost, compared to acting frantic beforehand. While once hearing the truth he seemed unphased by the news. The look of the ghost reminded me of a character from a 1970s-1980s Horror film rather than a Shakespearean era play, which made me uneasy at first. What I absolutely loved about Branagh's version was that he included flashbacks to the murder, allowing for a better intake of information and for the audience to see Claudius in a more human light. The look of regret after murdering his brother opened a gateway that directed the audience to feeling differently about the characters compared to just seeing what we create in our heads while reading.
In the final version we watched in class, Almereyda took a 180 degree turn with his adaptation. It was set in modern day NYC while keeping the traditional language Shakespeare spoke and had written in. The director worked with the props department to add physical symbolism into the scene, such as a light or lamp always being focused in on when the Ghost revealed another piece of information about his murder. Although, I could of course as a viewer read too far into such a minute detail. As a stand alone film I can highly appreciate the product created by the actors, screenplay writers, and director. It may have been an entertaining film if I was home bored one day. When compared and analyzed alongside more faithful adaptations, it does not stand up to the beloved Shakespeare play.
Each of the three adaptations had positive attributions and showcase the talent of film's team. Like mentioned previously, there were also details I was not particularly fond of. Considering how each adaptation portrayed the highly remembered Ghost Scene of Hamlet, I find director Franco Zeffirelli's version to be my favorite. I enjoyed it while watching it and looking back at my notes to write this analysis blog post.
The first adaptation watched was created director Franco Zeffirelli, who led Med Gibson as Hamlet and Paul Scofield as Ghost King Hamlet. I enjoyed this version because it did not seem to take many leniencies from the original play; the setting was accurate and I felt the same emotions from the characters on screen as I did when reading their lines from the playbook. Some may argue the Ghost had far too emotion for a supernatural creature, but I liked how you could his emotions play off of what he was saying. The anger when talking about his brother and the truth of his murder, but crying when talking about Gertrude and wanting his death to be avenged. In historical times, a king on his death bed would summon his heir to speak with him (seeing as the heir was usually a male). The King would speak with his son about the leader he was expected to be, before having some final words with each other. The emotions conveyed in the conversation between Ghost King Hamlet and his son reminded me of those father/son moments Hamlet was refused due to his father's murder. While the acting was, in my opinion, fantastic, the background was at times distracting. Considering the sun was on the horizon I would expect some more light, even just enough to be able to see the characters. I like how the background music had a somber tone to it, and eve created suspense in the beginning, but at times was overdone. The camera panned back and forth between the characters, almost reminding me of someone listening in on a conversation and moving their head back and forth. The feel I got from that reminded me of reading the play; delving into a story but not a part of it. Just silently observing.
In Branagh's adaptation of Hamlet I still had some favorable moments, while others threw me off. I preferred how in this version there was a realistic color to the sky for the time of night. Not only did it follow the play but it made it easier to see. The acting was well done by both Hamlet (Branagh) and Ghost King Hamlet (Brian Blessed). The emotion portrayed by Hamlet was more excited to speak to the ghost, compared to acting frantic beforehand. While once hearing the truth he seemed unphased by the news. The look of the ghost reminded me of a character from a 1970s-1980s Horror film rather than a Shakespearean era play, which made me uneasy at first. What I absolutely loved about Branagh's version was that he included flashbacks to the murder, allowing for a better intake of information and for the audience to see Claudius in a more human light. The look of regret after murdering his brother opened a gateway that directed the audience to feeling differently about the characters compared to just seeing what we create in our heads while reading.
In the final version we watched in class, Almereyda took a 180 degree turn with his adaptation. It was set in modern day NYC while keeping the traditional language Shakespeare spoke and had written in. The director worked with the props department to add physical symbolism into the scene, such as a light or lamp always being focused in on when the Ghost revealed another piece of information about his murder. Although, I could of course as a viewer read too far into such a minute detail. As a stand alone film I can highly appreciate the product created by the actors, screenplay writers, and director. It may have been an entertaining film if I was home bored one day. When compared and analyzed alongside more faithful adaptations, it does not stand up to the beloved Shakespeare play.
Each of the three adaptations had positive attributions and showcase the talent of film's team. Like mentioned previously, there were also details I was not particularly fond of. Considering how each adaptation portrayed the highly remembered Ghost Scene of Hamlet, I find director Franco Zeffirelli's version to be my favorite. I enjoyed it while watching it and looking back at my notes to write this analysis blog post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)